Comments on: USSF Meeting in New York with USL and Team Owners Association

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:47:13 +0000

Thanks Brian and I like your earler comment about Rongen as he is hasn’t won much of anything although he still remains in the US coaching system. To lose those games the way the US team did to Germany and South Korea was ridiculous. He should have promptly resigned his post as opposed to making up excuses. What did he need out of that South Korea game a draw to advance? I digress and having played in the USL at the time when it was known by another name and the current name I think regional division rivalries are the best for the fans as well as the teams. Hopefully the NuRock group can expand the league on a regional basis. I think a 20 team league whether it be minor or major would stand a better chance of getting noticed.

By: Bart

Bart — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:33:12 +0000

I would think that not everything is as it seems. USL has new ownership, and I cannot imagine they did not do their research on what was happening. I think, whether this is a new league or USL, that expansion into regional territories is a “must do” strategy. The travel expenses are a major cost to each of these teams.

By: Pat

Pat — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:19:18 +0000

Minnesota’s geographical loneliness, soccer-wise, puts us in the most precarious position of all. We’re all alone up here.

By: Brian Quarstad

Brian Quarstad — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:56:37 +0000

I probably agree with you more than anyone else Chris. I have also said the same thing for quite a while in that the travel expenses absolutely kill this league. We are in a very unique situation in the US with the great distances. As well, close proximity promotes regional rivalries which = fans at the stadium.

I’ve been told by Thunder owner Dean Johnson that it costs more to send a team on one away game than it they will take in on most home games. Unless of course they can draw big numbers like 5,000 or better.

So here’s an idea I passed by Thunder management recently. What if the league did add a few more teams so each region had a division and you played those teams once, but only more distant teams once a year? I haven’t really sat down and figured all the logistics of that but the concept seems good. Than again, what is close?

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:47:38 +0000

MLS is probably not going to sink any money into a second league since they barely pay their bottom tier rostered players enough to survive. This whole TOA thing is a debacle and the USL needs to go back to being a regional league in order to survive. The travel budgets for USL1 put it in a precarious situation from the get go. Part of the issue with players being developed in the USL is that MLS is not willing to pay for them case in point Mac Kandji. Hopefully the TOA and USL can put aside their differences in order to keep professional soccer alive in the US.

By: Pat

Pat — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 01:32:01 +0000

I appreciate your theories and optimism.

The new season starts in six months, and currently we kind of have two sort of half leagues. And that’s before the off season really starts in earnest (in which, in every season I’ve been following, a team has folded or threatened to fold). Ask the Arena Football League how things went after they took a season off.

Do you really not see the possibility for disaster here? If not, good for you. I’m envious.

And I know that USL as we know it is gone. I think it was gone the second Nurock took over. But I am still hopeful that the sides can get together and go forward as one, in one way or another.

By: Super Rookie

Super Rookie — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 22:48:48 +0000

I think change is good.

Then again, I use a sledge hammer for thumb tacks.

By: Jeff Wolter

Jeff Wolter — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:46:31 +0000

If 50% of the team I coached said they did not want to play in the upcoming game, then I would not think their play would be all that good even if they all agree to go out and play. I don’t see them just talking to sort out problems and then kissing and making up at this point.

The USL1 as we knew it is now gone. Face the facts.

The question is what comes next, and can it do a better job in the all important job of developing players for the US National Teams (U20, U23 and MNT), and MLS which should be the main role of a second league.

That is where we all gain the most in the long run.

The best thing is that the talks involve MLS, TOA, USL, and US Soccer All the people that have a stake in improving what currently is not working. We need to hold our reps responsible for creating a more effective second league at developing better players for every level of fan support. WE need to be pressuring US Soccer, and MLS to give us something better, or else realize this chance was wasted and ended in a colossal failure for all US fans that support the game.

Start sending e-mails to MLS, and US Soccer and demand something better for us, the fans of our sport.

http://www.ussoccer.com/About/Federa…ontact-Us.aspx

http://www.facebook.com/officialussoccer

By: Pat

Pat — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:07:44 +0000

Half the teams, that is.

By: Pat

Pat — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:06:43 +0000

“And I think everyone is pissed off and concerned that this is happening, and wishes it weren’t”.
“Really? Interesting opinion. I disagree.

A stronger and more focused second league will be a good thing in the long run. We have to stop thinking about next year and start thinking more about the future of american soccer as a whole.”

I just can’t understand this way of thinking at all. If changes need to be made, they should be made cooperatively. Have the teams shouldn’t disappear and then we have to separate entities working at it in different ways. It’s hard enough to get people to take minor league soccer seriously.

I’m really hoping this is just really hard ball negotiation and things get worked out before next year.