WUSA might rise from ashes

Discussion in 'NWSL' started by FlashMan, Sep 19, 2003.

  1. Crazy Old Lady

    Crazy Old Lady New Member

    May 22, 2003
    just outside Atlanta
    Club:
    Atlanta Beat
    Nat'l Team:
    England


    Posted on WUSA Board:Originally posted by: StarCityFan
    Hot link

    Four venues could be Torero (San Diego and San Jose), SAS (Atlanta and Carolina), Villanova (Washington and Philadelphia), and Mitchel or Nickerson (New York and Boston). I pick those because they're the cheapest: Spartan and RFK are expensive. Not sure about Herndon, though. Another possibility is to have all eight teams on the east coast to save on travel, in which case you might add Herndon to the list.


    /B][/QUOTE]
    If this is the Way they are thinking then it's nuts. An 800 mile roundtrip to see our team play Home games is sure going to cut down the Fan base and what happens to Season Ticket Holders when the Teams play each other.CRAZY. Plus Herndon is a far superior stadium to SAS.
    .
     
  2. Poachin_Goalz

    Poachin_Goalz Member

    Jun 17, 2002
    Athens, GA.

    If this is the Way they are thinking then it's nuts. An 800 mile roundtrip to see our team play Home games is sure going to cut down the Fan base and what happens to Season Ticket Holders when the Teams play each other.CRAZY. Plus Herndon is a far superior stadium to SAS.
    .
    [/QUOTE]


    I like supporting my team but I am not to spend 10 hrs round trip commuting to each game. They need to come up with a workable situation to play games in each city.
     
  3. Albany58

    Albany58 Member+

    Sep 14, 1999
    Concord, CA USA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Right. I couldn't see too many CyberRay fans traveling 500 miles (that's just one-way) to see their team.
     
  4. FearM9

    FearM9 New Member

    Jul 14, 2000
    On my bike
    And yet SAS is considering buying the Courage....

    ----

    From all accounts it seems like Mitchell was a pain in the ass to get to for folks not living on Strong Island so I would ixnay that stadium and have the Power become temp tenants of Nickerson. Besides, Joe Cummings is the interim GM of the Power. Just makes sense to have them in Boston for the time being.

    Come next summer it seems like us WUSA fans have two choices: 1) No league or 2) Some incarnation of a league. I'll take numero two. It's better than nothing.

    If the league does decide to go to that format...I HOPE that they can get good local TV deals for the teams that were uprooted. The one that comes to mind are the Cheetorays who had ZERO local TV coverage this past season.

    Sure the proposed format would suck for some....but looking at the big picture for 2004...we should just be happy that something might be put into place.

    With all that being said......

    Anyone else concerned that perhaps this ad hoc committee might be rushing things? It seems to me like they are caught up in the euphoria of the WWC and all the "Save The WUSA!" signs out there and the deluge of articles. Hopefully everyone has their heads screwed on straight and can rationally figure out how to make things work for the long run.
     
  5. Nacional Tijuana

    Nacional Tijuana St. Louis City

    St. Louis City SC
    May 6, 2003
    San Diego, Calif.
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Hmmmmmmmm. 500 miles to see the home team play.....at home?!?! I am all for facility-sharing, because it happens elsewhere in the world, too, but man, have a team named for a city it doesnt even play in?!
     
  6. Brownswan

    Brownswan New Member

    Jun 30, 1999
    Port St. Lucie, FL
    Is it a matter of saving WUSA or saving a women's professional soccer league?

    Why not use the (proposed, new) corporate backing to pay salaries in a women's division of MLS. 10 teams instead of 8, same names as the partner team in the men's division, same front office -- one rental package for the operation, with as many double headers as practical.

    San Jose, Boston, New York, DC, stay in their region, but, like DC, share the men's venue.

    San Diego moves to LA, because Chivas will have enough on it's hands starting up in San Diego, and distaff partnership would not be attractive to them. At least there still will be pro soccer in port -- and probably high level soccer at that.

    That leaves Atlanta, Carolina, and Philly. If the rent is right, they could stay where they are with their names, since no MLS team is close to the fan base, but add teams in Columbus and Denver, where an sss and sss-to-be make things very attractive.

    I never liked the name 'CyberRays' -- worst of a bad lot, though a couple MLS sides might rise to the challenge on that score.

    Flame away. I figure there are enough howling points for supporters of both leagues to burn up the board.
     
  7. charcroson

    charcroson New Member

    Nov 22, 2000
    Well, I hope so, too. It seems that they're wanting something out there, that will continue to bring in money and keep the WUSA from fading entirely away.

    Yeah, it's ad hoc. But the Olympics were always going to be a problem, anyway. It's not like the men, where there's an age limit and the WC is the premier event. For the women, the Olympics and the WC might be equal in terms of media exposure. So, a shortened season, leading into the Olympics has its advantages.

    Some league, better than no league, I think. And it gives them a chance to restructure and look for investors and sponsors for 2005 without sustaining expenses for a full year in 2004. And the Olympics might give them another boost into 2005. And 2004 could be a trial year for new management.

    I still have faith in Billie Jean King and her compatriots. Well, maybe not so much faith, but real hope.
     
  8. Sevin

    Sevin Member

    May 24, 2001
    U.S.
    Having 8 teams and not playing in all 8 cities would be suicidal from a perception standpoint. Can someone explain the logic in this?
     
  9. charcroson

    charcroson New Member

    Nov 22, 2000
    Practicality in partnering with the MLS is good. But why can't the WUSA stay/have its own entity/identity, with its own names and so forth? Partners are partners, like DaimlerChrysler. They're not Daimler and DaimlerUSA. See what I mean?

    It's not the practicality I question, it's not the business wisdom I question. It's a visceral edginess to the WUSA becoming a "division" of a men's league, like the "Quake-ettes" or the "Lady Quakes" in a worst case scenario.

    So, to me, it's a question of both. It's about soccer, but it's also about women's soccer. Because marketing a women's soccer league has challenges that marketing a men's soccer league doesn't. And making WUSA a subdivision of a men's soccer league only increases and focuses those marketing difficulties.

    The ABL was a good product, with a good business plan, that was driven out of business by the NBA -- and deliberately so IMO. I think a separate entity might have better served women's basketball than the "little sister is draining big brother's pockets" syndrome of the NBA/WNBA.
     
  10. tmeuz

    tmeuz New Member

    May 13, 2003
    Denver, CO
    Very intelligent of the WUSA brass to pull the plug on the league the very same week that the biggest marketing vehicle they can use to lobby for more investors starts (WWC).
     
  11. FearM9

    FearM9 New Member

    Jul 14, 2000
    On my bike
    I'm not sure if my logic is working right...but what about if the season was split in two for the teams...the first half of the season is played at one venue and then the second half of the season it switches to the other venue...

    For example....

    San Jose/San Diego:

    First half of season is played at Spartan and then second half at Torero.

    Or am I missing something here?
     
  12. ElJefe

    ElJefe Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 16, 1999
    Colorful Colorado
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'm sure someone has answered this, but she's one of the founders of what became the WTA.
     
  13. Brownswan

    Brownswan New Member

    Jun 30, 1999
    Port St. Lucie, FL
    The idea of an MLS with 2 divisions, men's and women's, is based on a recent Jeff Bradley article.
    (I'm fairly certain it's by Jeff, my short term memory is not what it used to be -- in fact, most of me isn't!)

    The concept is not one of an MLS and a WMLS, but two equal divisions. The article envisioned the teams having the same name. I think it is a good idea, certainly a radical idea, to close the book on WUSA. It seems wasteful to spend new money on a short season, with 8 teams working out of 4 shared venues.

    MLS may have adjusted its season for the WC, but it never shortened or virtually abandoned it, essentially deferring to what is icing on the cake, which is league play. WUSA seemed to exist in order to keep players going between WWCs. The MNT even turned down invitations to Copa America, because it conflicted with the MLS schedule.

    If women are to have a professional league, it should be able to ride through international events like the Olympics. However, the women's division of MLS could take a hiatus during the Olympics and finish at it's conclusion, while the league itself conrtinues without interruption in the men's division.

    The two-division league would be unique in world football -- notably advanced over the women's auxillary teams found in Europe, for example.

    Frankly, MLS probably would not be interested in expanding along these lines, and the supporters of WUSA are concerned about losing identity as a women's professional league on their own. They will probably get their wish and be on their own, one more time, and in a way that FIFA will be hard put to recognize as a First Division.

    Sometimes what appears to be a retreat (from WUSA) can actually be an attack in another direction.
     
  14. roarksown1

    roarksown1 Member

    Mar 30, 2001
    Playa del Rey, CA
    Club:
    Hamburger SV
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    MLS would be wise to continue on its path alone and steer clear of anything to do with a women's soccer league. It's just plain good business sense, and that's what they've shown over the past eight years in growing the league in the direction it's headed. It's just not gonna work out unless the women of this country get behind it in full force, and the majority of women just don't give a damn about sports.
     
  15. Kim-GoBeat!

    Kim-GoBeat! New Member

    Jun 21, 2001
    Thugsville, USA
    I agree. Herndon is a much better venue. The Beat had attendance that (at times) couldn't have fit in SAS...we had an 11,000 game and a couple beyond 8,000. SAS holds a little over 7,000 (I think). Atlanta's fan base has a lot of potential to grow. Putting them in a stadium that holds less than 8,000 would stifle any growth. I feel the Beat need to be in a Stadium that seats at least 10,000. The Courage do not have as large a fan base... SAS seems to be plenty big enough for them...I don't think they even sold out a game there in 2003. For me personally, I'm about the same distance from Herndon and SAS... the only difference is I have friends and family in Atlanta and I do not have a hotel expense. I would have that expense in Cary.

    It's not a bad idea to have a team in MLS cities. Atlanta would not meet that criteria. However, we do have the Silverbacks and I wonder if we could get them to play a double-header with the Beat. It could expand the fan base for each. I would definitely stick around after a Beat match to watch the Silverbacks. It seems like such a relationship would benefit both teams.
     
  16. Brownswan

    Brownswan New Member

    Jun 30, 1999
    Port St. Lucie, FL
    The Gobe article brings back memories of the last days of the NASL-- just this going, going, gone feeling amidst the talk of partial seasons, team reductions, converting to indoor. That was then.

    And now, this. I just wonder how many players will be interested in a short-term proposition for next year. If the money comes through, we should find out soon enough.
     
  17. ankhman

    ankhman Member

    May 14, 2003
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It seems crazy to me too.

    It seems crazy to me too to organized a shorten season in four venues especially if the setup is like this:Torero (San Diego and San Jose), SAS (Atlanta and Carolina), Villanova (Washington and Philadelphia), and Mitchel or Nickerson (New York and Boston). Some " VISITING " home fans would have to travels upwards of 10 hours or more get to the stadium. I myself would not be do that very offen, especially in the summer time when there alot cars on the road. I read somewhere organizers are looking at six venues setup, this would more sensible. This is my view: Torero (San Diego and San Jose), SAS (Carolina), Herndon (Atlanta), RFK or Lincoln Field (Washington and Philadelphia), and Mitchel or Nickerson (New York and Boston). My setup relies several predicaments being solved: 1. SAS buys the Carolina Courage, 2. WUSA negotiates a inexpensive lease with either RFK or Lincoln Field or in case of RFK, schedules all WUSA games there as as double-headers with DC United. I would believe the players and their coaches do not want to play on Villanova's bad field any more. And now this bit with shorten season, I read that the organizers want to start the league in June and play a season of 8 to 12 games plus All-Stars Game and Championship Game and finish at the end of July . Would this schedule be beneficial to any National Team player regardless of country if she is trying make her country's Olympic team? My answers is "NO." There is chance she might hurt, the pay could be minicule, the wear and tear on the body playing 2 games a week is going to take its told. The alternative would be staying a the regional training center getting free room and board, getting practice sessions with National Coach, and getting fairly good pay doing clinics on the side. If there is going be season, the season has to be worth playing. The season must be at least two months or longer, the season must be competitive and marketed as such, and the players must be paid accordingly.
     
  18. FlashMan

    FlashMan Member

    Jan 6, 2000
    'diego
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    they're doing an interviewe with DiCicco down here in San Diego on the sports station.

    he said he is "very certain" there will be a modified WUSA next year in 2004. seemed pretty definite about it and definitely added emphasis to the statement.
     
  19. Chris Caron

    Chris Caron New Member

    Feb 6, 2000
    Wilmington
    WUSA

    IMO...

    It was and is pointless to have just two West Coast teams...the only aside to that is that without a club in the West the WUSA would probably lose it's Division 1 status...actually it would completely lose any recognition from FIFA/USSF unless there is a rewrite in the USSF Bylaws (a step that should have been taken long ago). Unfortunately that could lead to "Regional" leagues suing for Divisional recognition from the USSF.

    In any case it doesn't make economic sense to have two West Coast clubs. They should cut the league down to the East Coast until such a time that there are enough teams in the west to make it feasible to run two leagues.

    As to a season...well use 6 teams make it home and away for a total of 10 games...and no more neutral site games or championships...that's about stupid...Atlanta vs. Washington in San Diego.
     
  20. Poachin_Goalz

    Poachin_Goalz Member

    Jun 17, 2002
    Athens, GA.
    Obviously, the first priority is having a league at all. I can understand downsizing as far as the number of teams but if you downsize the number of games and the player salaries too far, it would decimate the league talent pool. This is only a guess, but you would probably kiss a majority of the foreign players goodbye with a scaled down league. Anything is better than nothing but watching Atlanta without Sawa, Dominguez and Pohlers wouldn't be the same. It just might not be economically viable for these players to afford to come and play here for the money they would get for a shortened season. The biggest money saver would be to eliminate the California teams but star players like Fawcett and Mac live out there and may be hesitant to relocate. The league should try at all costs to keep the league intact.
     
  21. CUS

    CUS New Member

    Apr 20, 2000
    They tried this already. Didn't quite work out. Not enough revenues.
     
  22. DennisM

    DennisM Member

    Dec 10, 2000
    Nya Sverige
    "That leaves Atlanta, Carolina, and Philly. If the rent is right, they could stay where they are with their names, since no MLS team is close to the fan base, but add teams in Columbus and Denver, where an sss and sss-to-be make things very attractive."

    The Charge were the only team to have the highest average of attendance in the 3rd season.

    " was and is pointless to have just two West Coast teams...the only aside to that is that without a club in the West the WUSA would probably lose it's Division 1 status...actually it would completely lose any recognition from FIFA/USSF unless there is a rewrite in the USSF Bylaws (a step that should have been taken long ago). Unfortunately that could lead to "Regional" leagues suing for Divisional recognition from the USSF"

    Forgetting USSF for a moment, many first division men's leagues for a long time had leagues that were mainly from the capital city and maybe 1 or 2 in the suburbs. And look at Russia. They don't have teams for the entire width of the country either. Anyway, I would think that USSF would forego this anyway. Country's too darn big! So is Canada. That's the trouble starting up a national league in both countries.
     

Share This Page