- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: NASL, NPSL teams file with CAS to introduce pro/rel in U.S. soccer
Posted on 8/3/17 at 10:39 am to StraightCashHomey21
Posted on 8/3/17 at 10:39 am to StraightCashHomey21
It's just a way to get college players in. That's not how championship teams in MLS are built, anyway, so the comparison to other American leagues in that aspect doesn't really fit.
Posted on 8/3/17 at 10:42 am to Draconian Sanctions
There are three levels of competitiveness in pro/rel.
Compete for the title, compete for Europe (or other competitions), or stay up.
The incentive for West Brom, Stoke, etc to stay up leads most of those lower tier sides to play shite football. The race to 40 points is fun, but I like when sides take risks and not play absurdly conservatively.
Just cause it is done in most leagues does not mean it is necessary. If a European league was created now, do you think many teams in the top league would want it? frick no.
Compete for the title, compete for Europe (or other competitions), or stay up.
The incentive for West Brom, Stoke, etc to stay up leads most of those lower tier sides to play shite football. The race to 40 points is fun, but I like when sides take risks and not play absurdly conservatively.
Just cause it is done in most leagues does not mean it is necessary. If a European league was created now, do you think many teams in the top league would want it? frick no.
Posted on 8/3/17 at 10:48 am to Vicks Kennel Club
quote:
Just cause it is done in most leagues does not mean it is necessary.
Actually that's exactly what it means if you want your top league and national team to be competitive
Posted on 8/3/17 at 10:50 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
USSF is a money grubbing organization
What soccer federation isn't? What are you looking for your federation to do to grow the sport? Toe the red line of bankruptcy?
Posted on 8/3/17 at 10:50 am to Vicks Kennel Club
quote:
are three levels of competitiveness in pro/rel. Compete for the title, compete for Europe (or other competitions), or stay up. The incentive for West Brom, Stoke, etc to stay up leads most of those lower tier sides to play shite football. The race to 40 points is fun, but I like when sides take risks and not play absurdly conservatively.
shite football is played everywhere
quote:
Just cause it is done in most leagues does not mean it is necessary. If a European league was created now, do you think many teams in the top league would want it? frick no.
Yes bc they are clubs that operate one their own always trying to improve. Not in a franchise model with no penalty for being shite
This post was edited on 8/3/17 at 10:56 am
Posted on 8/3/17 at 10:50 am to cwil177
quote:
What soccer federation isn't? What are you looking for your federation to do to grow the sport? Toe the red line of bankruptcy?
Pay to play bruv pay to play
Posted on 8/3/17 at 10:52 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
and national team to be competitive
I'm not buying that, because America's best, in-their-prime players shouldn't be playing over here for the most part.
If the United States had this wonderful pro-rel system and everything was exactly how you would want it, the better soccer and support would still be in Europe because it's got 100-plus years of a head start on America.
Posted on 8/3/17 at 10:54 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
Not in a franchise model with no penalty for being shite
But there really isn't a reward, either, unlike the NBA or NFL or whatever. It's not like you see teams trying to be bad just to cash in.
Hypothetically, it could happen, but MLS doesn't really have that problem.
Posted on 8/3/17 at 10:55 am to WarSlamEagle
quote:
I'm not buying that, because America's best, in-their-prime players shouldn't be playing over here for the most part.
Well that's what MLS wants
quote:
If the United States had this wonderful pro-rel system and everything was exactly how you would want it, the better soccer and support would still be in Europe because it's got 100-plus years of a head start on America.
The problem is no one wants to pay 200+ million to be in a "minor" league as they would see it.
Posted on 8/3/17 at 11:01 am to WarSlamEagle
quote:
If the United States had this wonderful pro-rel system and everything was exactly how you would want it, the better soccer and support would still be in Europe because it's got 100-plus years of a head start on America.
in the short term i think thats true, in the long term i dont. And in fact in the long term with a functioning open system i think youd see the reverse
However, at the very least what you would eventually get is a league on par with what they have in Brazil and Argentina, which is really what we need. Sure, under that scenario the best of the best would still go to Europe but they would be better, younger and our clubs and national team would be much better for it.
Posted on 8/3/17 at 11:02 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
#1 I would say okay we're going to have pro/rel in 5 years. This would give MLS and everybody a timeline to work towards as I dont think it would be fair to just drop it on everyone overnight. If MLS or any other league doesn't want to participate they don't have to, but they will be operating as an unsanctioned league.
We'll just say for our purposes that MLS, NASL, USL, and NPSL all agree to be involved and those are your 4 main leagues in our pyramid, in that order.
#2 I would utilize the Mexico style of a 3 year rolling "score" by which clubs are relegated from a league. I understand that the US is still a "young" soccer country in many ways and I'm not interested in punishing a club over one bad season, which may be more due to bad luck than anything else. Using this system relegates only those clubs that are consistently struggling to compete at their division level. You may even have years where nobody is relegated.
For example. Lets say the Colorado Rapids are relegated and the San Francisco Deltas are promoted. San Francisco would not be "eligible" for relegation until 3 full years in MLS. They they finish bottom in the MLS West those first 2 years then nobody would be relegated as the bottom club in that conference isn't eligible for relegation at that point.
#3 It would have to be regionalized. The US being wayyyyyy bigger than other countries makes a pro/rel system that doesnt take geography into account untenanble. From MLS I would relegate 1 club from each conference down to NASL, which would need to have conferences set up as well. Relegation from NASL to USL and USL to NPSL would probably be even more geographic specific. You'd also probably have to start pro rel between USL and NPSL for a year or two before incorporating it with NASL and then another year or two before bringing in MLS.
I enjoyed this post more than your others because it actually explains what you find feasible and reasonable rather than being another anti MLS diatribe. You may be surprised to hear that I actually agree with your points, for the most part. I would love to see promotion and relegation here but as another poster said, I'm not convinced our burgeoning soccer infrastructure is ready to be turned on its head for it yet. Our league is only 20 years old and has almost collapsed at times. The old NASL collapsed and then we didn't have a domestic league for another twenty years. I don't want something catastrophic like that to happen again because promotion and relegation gets instituted too soon. But overall I thought this was a good post.
That said, USL has been consistently an equal if not better product than NASL for the past few years (at least head to head and in some places based on attendance figures). Not sure NASL should automatically get D2 status in a pro/rel scenario.
Posted on 8/3/17 at 11:04 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
Pay to play bruv pay to play
We both agree that oay to play is shite but you didn't come remotely close to answering my question.
Posted on 8/3/17 at 11:05 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
Well that's what MLS wants
Eh, sure, but the league takes pride in exporting dudes to Europe as well.
quote:
The problem is no one wants to pay 200+ million to be in a "minor" league as they would see it.
That had literally nothing to do with what you quoted.
This post was edited on 8/3/17 at 11:07 am
Posted on 8/3/17 at 11:07 am to cwil177
quote:
Our league is only 20 years old and has almost collapsed at times. The old NASL collapsed and then we didn't have a domestic league for another twenty years. I don't want something catastrophic like that to happen again because promotion and relegation gets instituted too soon.
In an open system you dont need to worry about the leagues anymore. The well run, strong clubs will survive while the poorly run, weak ones will fail and be replaced.
Posted on 8/3/17 at 11:08 am to cwil177
I'm with you... Look I wasn't advocating for pro/rel tomorrow or next year, but within a decade I'd say it'll be feasible (or at least that's my hope).
As for getting the owners/investors to be on board, I feel like that wouldn't be as difficult as some think.
You pitch it to them as a way to increase the level of the league as a whole, which in turn makes the league more attractive to sponsors and media, which means TV rights deals go up, kit sponsorship deals go up, etc. which would:
A. Allow them to recoup their investment in a shorter period and..
B. Give them incentive to invest to keep the club competitive
As for getting the owners/investors to be on board, I feel like that wouldn't be as difficult as some think.
You pitch it to them as a way to increase the level of the league as a whole, which in turn makes the league more attractive to sponsors and media, which means TV rights deals go up, kit sponsorship deals go up, etc. which would:
A. Allow them to recoup their investment in a shorter period and..
B. Give them incentive to invest to keep the club competitive
Posted on 8/3/17 at 11:10 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Actually that's exactly what it means if you want your top league and national team to be competitive
If the concern is the national team shouldn't we be more focused on forcing the MLS clubs to strengthen their academies with American kids and improve the overall coaching, infrastructure and scouting of those academies instead of just threatening them with relegation?
And this isn't an anti pro/rel post. I would like to see it but like others think it's too soon. But if the focus is American youth development I think the better way is to have loftier requirements on coaching our youth in these academies and elsewhere.
Posted on 8/3/17 at 11:10 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
In an open system you dont need to worry about the leagues anymore. The well run, strong clubs will survive while the poorly run, weak ones will fail and be replaced.
The pyramid system is proven to work for soccer.
Closed systems have been proven to work in other sports. In America and around the world.
Posted on 8/3/17 at 11:13 am to etm512
you accomplish this
quote:
shouldn't we be more focused on forcing the MLS clubs to strengthen their academies with American kids and improve the overall coaching, infrastructure and scouting of those academies
in part by doing this
quote:
threatening them with relegation
This post was edited on 8/3/17 at 11:14 am
Posted on 8/3/17 at 11:20 am to Draconian Sanctions
That is a carrot for sure. But there are other less potentially harmful ways of getting those regulations in place tomorrow.
Posted on 8/3/17 at 11:32 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
In an open system you dont need to worry about the leagues anymore. The well run, strong clubs will survive while the poorly run, weak ones will fail and be replaced.
Maybe, but in a lot of leagues the typical pattern is shitty/mismanaged/poor club gets relegated and replaced by almost an exact same type of club. Who then gets relegated, and the cycle repeats. I still support pro/rel, but the bottom of the table will almost always be clubs that are fricked up in some way.
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News