Comments on: Rethinking Division-2 Pro Soccer in North America – Part 3

By: Pounder

Pounder — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 06:16:18 +0000

First… the thought that MLS putting their name behind the 2nd division would boost ticket sales? The NBA putting their name in with the D-League, promoting the heck out of the NBA ties, has done squat for D-League franchises. The D-League survives by cannibalizing better old CBA markets and, if not quite frenetically expanding, certainly trying.

Minor league baseball… as I’ve poked and prodded into that realm this year, I think I’ve learned the dark side of that business. I don’t much believe their attendance numbers anymore. That doesn’t mean they’re not viable at their actual attendance, though I suspect the Pacific Coast League isn’t with its current geography. What happens, IMO, is that a few show pony franchises shake out taxpayer money from many other places… or in the case of the PCL, too much debt. Beyond those show ponies, there are teams living off the taxpayers, and a few survivors who either scrape by… or benefit from being within an hour or two of the MLB parent club. The irony… I wouldn’t be surprised if AAA ball morphs to become the “reserve league” for MLB, those teams traveling with their parents, playing mostly in either current minor league parks or, in a few cases, the big ballpark.

I’ve been an advocate of regionalizing… and still am. However, there’s another basketball comparison to be heeded. There’s a few leagues existing in a region that have serious turnover. There’s a league (a scam, to be sure) trying what you propose. Truth is that not every market will work, this proposal will not give the appearance of stability we seek for some time. We have to be willing to make errors. Rival owners are advised to help by giving a few pointers on operations… and sending buses of fans on road trips to help each other out. I think this will help, but I don’t see a model that is inherently more stable than what we’ve experienced over several years. Stability will have to come with time… and some anchor clubs that help to spread the love.

By: Dave

Dave — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 22:21:30 +0000

I meant to say that only LA and Sact’o were left after the ’76 season; the ASL added Santa Barbara (folded after 12 games) and the CA Sunshine for the ’77 season. All four, plus the SoCal Lasers (added for for ’78; one-and-done), LV Seagulls (1979) and the Golden Gate Gales, were gone by 1981.

By: Dave

Dave — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 22:14:23 +0000

The NASL is nuts for trying to be a “national” league! That is what ultimately killed the old ASL; a failed West Coast expansion, where all but two teams failed after their first year (Oakland, Utah, Tacoma; only LA and Sact’o , and all the western teams were gone by 1980-81. By 1981, most their teams were east of the Mississippi (except for OKC and Dallas (82-83)), and most of them were south of the Mason-Dixon Line; by 1983, they were done.

Whoever the D-2 league is next year, they need to seriously consider bolstering the East/Midwest teams, and tell Edmonton to wait until there are at least 4-5 other western teams in the mix. D-2 should not be any more than 16-20 teams, with four, 4 to 5-team divisions. They need two conferences (East and West, two divisions each), with the conference winners playing for the championship. Even with this setup, it would be pushing it, if a team like Phoenix has to travel to Edmonton, or Miami (if they’re still around) has to go to Hamilton or Ottawa (or even Rochester). And the USL is absolutely insane for looking to the Caribbean.

As for the Atlanta owner, I understand from reading other postings that he is not a Railhawks owner any more. There are rumors that the ‘Backs are in for ’11, but until we in ATL see a schedule, and they actually have a game, we’ll believe it when we see it. There has been absolutely no news whatsoever, either yea or nay that I’m aware of, beside the rumors.

By: 2 Cents

2 Cents — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:56:24 +0000

From a business standpoint, cutting player salaries would initially seem to be a smart thing to do. But it does nothing but stunt player development in this country. Why? Because after players mature and see that they can hold another job getting paid 4 – 5 times as much as they would as a player, and still play in leagues that challenge their competitive nature, why in the world would they continue to play in this “pro” league? Simply put, there are players all over the country that are better than the players that are currently playing in the USL. As much as I will always support any local USL team that this state has because it benefits the growth of the game as a whole, it just sickens me to see how sub-par many of these paid players are in terms of soccer ability. It just blows my mind how some of these players are even paid a nickle to step on the field. But it’s impossible to hold player ability to a higher standard when many of the best players in the country choose financial independence over playing a game. It sucks, but it’s the truth.

By: Zentrum Orlando

Zentrum Orlando — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:39:12 +0000

Please, in the name of all that is holy and pure, please do not portray Commissioner Garber as the David Stern of MLS. How about “…the Pete Rozelle of MLS”? I continue to hope that Garber will lead MLS much more like Rozelle led the NFL far more than the way Stern has allowed the NBA to devolve into a running reality series over the past several years, with all the charm and plastic drama that entails. MLS can and must aim higher.

Excellent series, Brian. Much appreciated.

By: 2 Cents

2 Cents — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:36:49 +0000

@evegoe – I think that’s the point he was trying to make, that it’s not feasible at this point. I don’t think he indicated in any way, shape or form that he believed it was possible to have 6K – 8K a game in attendance.

By: ERic

ERic — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:36:14 +0000

Re: Railhawks owner quote. Really. And this guy is one of the ones that was driving the NASL creation? No wonder Rawlins has been shy of the NASL. As many people have been saying — “Who cares what the league does in promotion. Teams need to promote themselves locally.”

I am appalled that the Railhawks owner is saying that they haven’t properly built up their marketing and sales team.

…I’m also intrigued that the Atlanta Silverbacks owner isn’t in the list of Railhawks owners. I thought he was a partial owner. If he’s gone, what does that say about the Atlanta NASL franchise?

I’m starting to think that, once again, there’s no way either the NASL or USL will have enough teams to put out a D2 league next season. The USSF can say it doesn’t want to keep running the league, but there’s not much evidence at this point that the two current options are any where near ready or capable.

By: Sounder 75

Sounder 75 — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:13:35 +0000

1) For now, drop D-2 teams down to D-3 and move some PDL teams up to D-3. A certain amount of those teams will rise to the top and eventually a new D-2 league could be started when the teams are ready and the timing is right.

That’s the way to go if they were smart the would do it like that.

By: Jane

Jane — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:53:31 +0000

I haven’t spoken for awhile but it seems like it is time to speak. I think the whole concept of regionalization makes a lot of sense but there is one thing wrong. This will take several years to put it together and the current D2 problem needs resolution now. The problem at the D2 level is not an expense problem…..IT IS A REVENUE PROBLEM!!! In any business driving expenses down as low as you can get them rarely results in a successful business. Driving revenue is the answer which means increasing fan attendance which also drives sponsorship revenue both of which result in elevating soccer in the U.S. and Canada. The answer is not what you and others are suggesting by merging/consolidating current D2, D3, and PDL teams for the purpose of lowering expenses which BTW also lowers the overall level of play. The real answer is to take the current D2 teams and put them under the MLS umbrella and raise the level of play to put more fans in the seats. Additionally, the MLS structure with centralized control of player salaries, MLS players on loan to D2 teams to get more playing time , and the resources of SUM to help D2 teams with big revenue exhibition matches, expansion, etc, is the answer. And don’t underestimate the value of branding. If D2 is announced as MLS-2 the very next day will result in more D2 ticket sales. Further, MLS is badly in need of strong reserve teams for player development and a tight connection with strong D2 teams solves that problem while at the same time elevates the level of play within D2. The NASL owners have been unjustifiably criticized by everyone for thinking bigger resulting in the elevation of soccer. Think small and you will stay small…..the result will be that you will stagnate soccer’s growth. I am rooting hard for the NASL “bigger thinkers.”

By: CoconutMonkey

CoconutMonkey — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 04:13:35 +0000

To BQ: Ha ha. Don’t worry. I haven’t chucked my sense of financial reality out the window. I wasn’t trying to force a pro-rel flame war into the conversation. But after reading my previous post, I basically did. My bad.

Thanks for the info too. To be honest, I’m not quite sure I understand the relationship that USL clubs had/have with the league. Especially at this level, and these attendance figures, I’m not sure how professional clubs can survive without working together financially. I can only assume that the NASL teams have a different vision when it comes to how the league operates.