USMNT soccer team thread

[Upstate]

Sorta mentioned already, but watching the games in CONMEBOL side by side with the CONCACAF matches was night and day. And not in a sense of level of play, but pace of play. Trinidad used a bit of gamesmanship to slow down the US on that field, one better suited for their formidable defenders as opposed to our skilled, quick attackers. The pace of the ball felt like a snail with the ball nearly defying physics and coming to a dead stop almost at random. Once we had our creative and athletic advantage taken away like that, T&T could make a game of it and there seemed to be nothing we could do.

When we had the ball, we were going against 9, and when we lost it we seemed outnumbered on their counter. That's very poor coaching with an inexcusable understanding between the players and management.

 

[Townie72]

I've got an idea what we --- the US --- ought to do.

Give Up!

Stop throwing good money after bad.

If the goal is to make the US be Germany or Spain or Brazil we need to come to grips with the high probability it ain't gonna happen for 20, 30, or 40 years at best. And that it could conceivably never happen.

All of the effort to date has yielded what? 3 wins out of 10 against in a group that includes panama and Trinidad?

And Christian Pulisac?

 

[DeGrozz]

I've got an idea what we --- the US --- ought to do.

Give Up!

Stop throwing good money after bad.

If the goal is to make the US be Germany or Spain or Brazil we need to come to grips with the high probability it ain't gonna happen for 20, 30, or 40 years at best. And that it could conceivably never happen.

All of the effort to date has yielded what? 3 wins out of 10 against in a group that includes panama and Trinidad?

And Christian Pulisac?

Is it ironic that this is posted on a Syracuse Football board?

 

[NateW]

I don't know much about soccer - and don't follow it too closely at all but...

shouldn't Klinsmann have been given more time considering the results of the 2014 WC?

 

[Alsacs]

I don't know much about soccer - and don't follow it too closely at all but...

shouldn't Klinsmann have been given more time considering the results of the 2014 WC?

The team hated Klinsmann.
I wasn’t a huge fan but I didn’t want him sacked. I wasn’t upset when it happened either.

He faced 2 of our 3 toughest WCQ matches and got 0 points. We should have gotten something against Mexico at home.

Klinsmann had the right ideas but he wasn’t liked.

 

[NateW]

The team hated Klinsmann.
I wasn’t a huge fan but I didn’t want him sacked. I wasn’t upset when it happened either.

He faced 2 of our 3 toughest WCQ matches and got 0 points. We should have gotten something against Mexico at home.

Klinsmann had the right ideas but he wasn’t liked.

Interesting. Thanks for the info.

It's disappointing to see the US will not qualify for the WC. It's exciting to see how we play against the best in the world every 4 years.

You'd think a country our size would be much better at the sport but I guess the better athletes in this country still gravitate toward basketball, football, and baseball. I know in my town the better athletes also prefer to play lacrosse as well. So perhaps the pool is lessened due to a lack of interest? Or is the US lack of success due to a poor understanding of the game at the lower levels - poor coaching of those that do choose the sport?

 

[Alsacs]

To be fair to Bruce Arena he did bring energy and the team did come Out hot.

For the most part he did well.
We just choked yesterday.
The USA got draws at Panama, Honduras, Mexico that should get us qualified 10 out of 10 Times.

The problem was the Costa Rica home match.

 

[Bortukal]

Interesting. Thanks for the info.

It's disappointing to see the US will not qualify for the WC. It's exciting to see how we play against the best in the world every 4 years.

You'd think a country our size would be much better at the sport but I guess the better athletes in this country still gravitate toward basketball, football, and baseball. I know in my town the better athletes also prefer to play lacrosse as well. So perhaps the pool is lessened due to a lack of interest? Or is the US lack of success due to a poor understanding of the game at the lower levels - poor coaching of those that do choose the sport?

This is a common criticism, that our best athletes don't choose soccer. I don't believe our best athletes choose swimming either, yet the US continues to dominate at that sport on the international level. I don't see the problems that US soccer faces being athletic ones. In other words, I don't see us getting physically blown away by our opponents being bigger, stronger, faster. What I do see is us constantly being beaten tactically by opponents with a greater depth of skill that comes from a lifetime of practice under professional, experienced coaching.

I think we need to change the way we teach and play the game starting from the youth level, and I think we need to encourage our promising young players to gain experience abroad.

I think MLS has been a boon for CONCACAF, but awful for the USMNT.

 

[CUSU]

He played a ton of new players in the Gold Cup. Not an entirely fair criticism. I'm disappointed, too, but we need better coaching, and we need to show a bunch of the older guys the door.

Of course there are other issues going on here as well, but he didn't bring in that many new players, 5/23. It also depends on your definition of new. Only a couple saw more than a game, Kellyn Rowe and Dwyer. None continued with the team post Gold Cup.

We called in a bunch of old NT retreads like Zusi, Bedoya, Omar, Zardes.. Arena then proceeded to call in his favorites half way through, we didn't need to win the gold cup we needed to integrate new young talent NOW. Bruce even admitted he would refresh the roster post qualification, but it's too late.

GK:
Guzan and Howard got all the minutes in the GC, was Horvath even called? Goal keeping was not good in qualification.

FB:
Project retread Zusi, failure. Lichaj looked better than Zusi IMO doesn't get called back in. Chandler can't get a call, but anyone with eyes could see FB is one of our weakest positions and definitely hurt us in the Hex. Why not try some younger guys? Our U21s and U19s are good. LB I can't argue with, we have no one. But I sure as hell would have tried to convince Fab Johnson to play there. Villafaña is OK, but not a threat and gets beat by faster physical attackers.

CB:
Bruce said last night that our CBs have difficulty playing out the back. No Sherlock you're playing Omar Gonzales back there your old LA galaxy buddy. You had Cameron on the bench, a BPL mainstay at CB or CDM. At the gold cup you could have played Miazga a majority of games he's playing very well in Eriedivisie, or Carter Vickers in the Chsmpionship, or Eric Palmer Brown the star for the U21s and signed by Manchester city. There are options here and none were properly vetted. Note: John Brooks is injured but he would have played on the left anyway.

Center mid:
Acosta (positive column), Bedoya old retread, Corona tried before, Dax (neutral was never going to unseat Bradley), Roldan (positive). Corona we know can't hack it at the nats level, Bedoya is a workhouse without the legs anymore, wish roldan would have gotten more than a game. Let's call in Bradley to save the day! Instead of actually getting the new guys you did call in some time. Why not Williams playing in the BPL (not new but has been improving up to the BPL has the athleticism to replace Jones), Or Mckennie in the Bundesliga, or Johnathen Gonzales in Liga MX. Two of which are new faces. Also, Tyler Adams in the MLS. None of the guys Bruce called had enough bite and athleticism to make an impact and make up for Bradley's deficiencies. Our captain in central midfield was soft the entire qualifying cycle.

Attacking mid/wing:
All I have to say is Chris Pontius... gotta be a joke. Yea he's going to help us qualify. Call in some youngsters with ambition and skill! Rowe and Saeif were good call-ins. Gets rid of Rowe and calls in Zardes haha.. Let me see some Carleton.

Striker:
Agudelo meh, has had chances and never has enough to break in, Morris ok no skill, Dwyer was a good call in. I would have called in Sargent who is now with Wolfsburg, lighting it up for the youth national teams.



I know that most of these are opinion, but I don't think Bruce truly tried to integrate any of these players. Instead we stuck with Zusi at RB and had to call in old man Beas, must be about 50, to save the day. Felt bad for Beasley he looked so frail about to break in half each time he went in for a tackle. We had options at CB. Our defense and goal keeping is what let us down, we scored the most goals in the hex. I think some of that has to do with our lack of a central midfield but no changes were truly attempted other than Acosta for Jones.

 

[Townie72]

Is it ironic that this is posted on a Syracuse Football board?

At least with SU football we have done it a couple of times before.

This is more like Rutgers football. A couple of good seasons then a monumental fail.

 

[DeGrozz]

At least with SU football we have done it a couple of times before.

This is more like Rutgers football. A couple of good seasons then a monumental fail.

For a second there I thought you might know what you're talking about.

 

[IthacaMatt]

20 teams. Home/home single table would be ideal.

It’s how most world leagues do it.
Liga MX is the only other top flight league that does playoffs like MLS.

Lower divisions in other leagues do playoffs for promotion but not for a title.

MLS is going to screw it all up and try to be like the NFL, where there are about 30 teams broken into conferences who eventually meet in a soccer Super Bowl of sorts. They've already devalued the regular season title by not having everyone play home and home, just like NCAA conferences over-expanded and hurt the product. They are trying to create playoffs at the end of the season, just because that's how we do it here. We don't do season long tournaments running in parallel to the regular season.

European and South American soccer is like the college football bowls used to be, back until the 1970s or 80s. Back then, going to a bowl (i.e. playing for a cup) was a big deal, not just a "performance trophy". And you had a bunch of teams who could consider their years successful, if they won the Peach Bowl or the Fiesta Bowl, and so on. Now, with the college football playoff and the BCS before it, and our winner-take-all society, those things have been devalued to American fans.

But the cups still matter, to a pretty decent extent, in a lot of these European and South American leagues. In Spain, if anyone other than Barca or Real wins the Copa del Rey, it's a memorable season for that team. The New Year's Day bowls were the last hold-outs, but now they have even been devalued by TV overexposure with other games.

 

[IthacaMatt]

The team hated Klinsmann.
I wasn’t a huge fan but I didn’t want him sacked. I wasn’t upset when it happened either.

He faced 2 of our 3 toughest WCQ matches and got 0 points. We should have gotten something against Mexico at home.

Klinsmann had the right ideas but he wasn’t liked.

Klinsmann's problems were that he wasn't tactically astute, to be kind. And he constantly tinkered with the back line. You can't do that and build a cohesive defense. The players have to get to know each others' moves like ESP.

He encouraged the players to get out of their comfort zones and dare to do more than just try to grind out games, but the US didn't have enough players capable of playing his style of football, and at the end of the day, you have to be able to grind out games and get results. He was never at fault, that's what the players didn't like about him.

The best things he did for the US, that will have a long term impact, is the foreign recruitment of dual-citizenship players from better leagues around the world. Totally necessary to improve the talent pool, and the sophistication of US players. And he got some of those players to believe in themselves. A lot more young guys did better under Klinsmann than they did under Arena (first time) or Bradley. They seemed to get more chances, and they often responded.

 

[DeGrozz]

MLS is going to screw it all up and try to be like the NFL, where there are about 30 teams broken into conferences who eventually meet in a soccer Super Bowl of sorts. They've already devalued the regular season title by not having everyone play home and home, just like NCAA conferences over-expanded and hurt the product. They are trying to create playoffs at the end of the season, just because that's how we do it here. We don't do season long tournaments running in parallel to the regular season.

European and South American soccer is like the college football bowls used to be, back until the 1970s or 80s. Back then, going to a bowl (i.e. playing for a cup) was a big deal, not just a "performance trophy". And you had a bunch of teams who could consider their years successful, if they won the Peach Bowl or the Fiesta Bowl, and so on. Now, with the college football playoff and the BCS before it, and our winner-take-all society, those things have been devalued to American fans.

But the cups still matter, to a pretty decent extent, in a lot of these European and South American leagues. In Spain, if anyone other than Barca or Real wins the Copa del Rey, it's a memorable season for that team. The New Year's Day bowls were the last hold-outs, but now they have even been devalued by TV overexposure with other games.

I'm pretty indifferent about the playoffs vs. single table championship. On one hand, the single table home-and-away is the best way to crown a champion, but I also love that the playoffs keep so many teams interesting for the whole season and I do find knock-out soccer to be thrilling. (I also think not having as many teams that can go to a continental championship hurts the single table argument in the US, but not so much that it really matters)

IthacaMatt, I don't know how much MLS you watch, and Alsacs, you've said you casually watch some of the national broadcast games (other fans feel free to chime in too), but would a single table with pro/rel really change your interest in the league that much that it would increase your fandom?

I don't mean to sound insulting saying this (and I promise I am not trying to start a fight here), but I've always felt the loudest proponents for Pro/Rel are fans that don't closely watch the league anyway and probably wouldn't change their viewing/supporting habits no matter the league's format. I guess I just personally don't see someone turning off Bears/Packers on a Sunday afternoon and turning on Philly Union/Orlando SC instead because of a switch from playoff to single table seasons -- it's always just seemed like weird thing to complain about for a country with only ~25 clubs that can attract more than 10K fans per game and fewer that can even field full-time professionals.

In the future though, if there are 40 or 60 clubs that are truly being supported, I'd love it if serious consideration was given to both formats and the best fit for the country was implemented.

 

[IthacaMatt]

IthacaMatt, I don't know how much MLS you watch, and Alsacs, you've said you casually watch some of the national broadcast games (other fans feel free to chime in too), but would a single table with pro/rel really change your interest in the league that much that it would increase your fandom?

I don't mean to sound insulting saying this (and I promise I am not trying to start a fight here), but I've always felt the loudest proponents for Pro/Rel are fans that don't closely watch the league anyway and probably wouldn't change their viewing/supporting habits no matter the league's format.

In the future though, if there are 40 or 60 clubs that are truly being supported, I'd love it if serious consideration was given to both formats and the best fit for the country was implemented.

Eh, I watch the featured teams now and then. It seems like the LA Galaxy is on, or Portland plays Seattle or NYC FC v Red Bulls every time I tune in. The regular season doesn't matter much because I think 10 teams make the playoffs, and then the playoffs are not home-and-home, right? I think that makes it very much a crap shoot. When I do watch, I don't like seeing artificial turf, because that's hard on the players' legs and they can't really slide into tackles like they do on a wet European pitch.

I don't think relegation and promotion would make US soccer more exciting to watch. I agree that you can't expect people to make multi-million investments in buying teams and building stadiums if they risk getting sent down to a league that could soon die. That's not good for the sport. What we need is players with better close control, and guys who don't always try to force through passes that aren't there. There is no patience in either MLS or the American men's build-up play. They always force it and quickly lose possession. It's the number one thing we have to do to improve the product on both the national team and in MLS.

 

[DeGrozz]

There is no patience in either MLS or the American men's build-up play. They always force it and quickly lose possession. It's the number one thing we have to do to improve the product on both the national team and in MLS.

You might enjoy NYCFC play. If you only watch them play against the Red Bulls, the RB high press always messes with their build out of the back style, but they may be the best team that the MLS has ever had building out of the back -- I think Patrick Viera being their coach is going to have a very positive impact on the American game for the very obvious deficiency that you point out (if we can keep him in the US).

 

[NineOneSeven]

This thread fascinates me. Never been a soccer guy but last 8 years I've watched it way more than in the previous 8. Started to appreciate it a bit more. Still don't really know much at All, so interesting to hear a lot of the knowledge in the thread

Such a strange game given all the various "federations" in the world

 

[IthacaMatt]

Of course there are other issues going on here as well, but he didn't bring in that many new players, 5/23. It also depends on your definition of new. Only a couple saw more than a game, Kellyn Rowe and Dwyer. None continued with the team post Gold Cup.

We called in a bunch of old NT retreads like Zusi, Bedoya, Omar, Zardes.. Arena then proceeded to call in his favorites half way through, we didn't need to win the gold cup we needed to integrate new young talent NOW. Bruce even admitted he would refresh the roster post qualification, but it's too late.

GK:
Guzan and Howard got all the minutes in the GC, was Horvath even called? Goal keeping was not good in qualification.

FB:
Project retread Zusi, failure. Lichaj looked better than Zusi IMO doesn't get called back in. Chandler can't get a call, but anyone with eyes could see FB is one of our weakest positions and definitely hurt us in the Hex. Why not try some younger guys? Our U21s and U19s are good. LB I can't argue with, we have no one. But I sure as hell would have tried to convince Fab Johnson to play there. Villafaña is OK, but not a threat and gets beat by faster physical attackers.

CB:
Bruce said last night that our CBs have difficulty playing out the back. No Sherlock you're playing Omar Gonzales back there your old LA galaxy buddy. You had Cameron on the bench, a BPL mainstay at CB or CDM. At the gold cup you could have played Miazga a majority of games he's playing very well in Eriedivisie, or Carter Vickers in the Chsmpionship, or Eric Palmer Brown the star for the U21s and signed by Manchester city. There are options here and none were properly vetted. Note: John Brooks is injured but he would have played on the left anyway.

Center mid:
Acosta (positive column), Bedoya old retread, Corona tried before, Dax (neutral was never going to unseat Bradley), Roldan (positive). Corona we know can't hack it at the nats level, Bedoya is a workhouse without the legs anymore, wish roldan would have gotten more than a game. Let's call in Bradley to save the day! Instead of actually getting the new guys you did call in some time. Why not Williams playing in the BPL (not new but has been improving up to the BPL has the athleticism to replace Jones), Or Mckennie in the Bundesliga, or Johnathen Gonzales in Liga MX. Two of which are new faces. Also, Tyler Adams in the MLS. None of the guys Bruce called had enough bite and athleticism to make an impact and make up for Bradley's deficiencies. Our captain in central midfield was soft the entire qualifying cycle.

Attacking mid/wing:
All I have to say is Chris Pontius... gotta be a joke. Yea he's going to help us qualify. Call in some youngsters with ambition and skill! Rowe and Saeif were good call-ins. Gets rid of Rowe and calls in Zardes haha.. Let me see some Carleton.

Striker:
Agudelo meh, has had chances and never has enough to break in, Morris ok no skill, Dwyer was a good call in. I would have called in Sargent who is now with Wolfsburg, lighting it up for the youth national teams.



I know that most of these are opinion, but I don't think Bruce truly tried to integrate any of these players. Instead we stuck with Zusi at RB and had to call in old man Beas, must be about 50, to save the day. Felt bad for Beasley he looked so frail about to break in half each time he went in for a tackle. We had options at CB. Our defense and goal keeping is what let us down, we scored the most goals in the hex. I think some of that has to do with our lack of a central midfield but no changes were truly attempted other than Acosta for Jones.

Yes, lots of good young guys didn't get the chance. Arena was always going to favor the US MLS guys who he knew. Arena is the guy who questioned the European based guys' commitment, which was calling out Fabian Johnson, in particular, who responded by saying, "eh, screw it".

We need to integrate lots of new guys, all over the field. There is no question that our backs lacked the athleticism to compete at a top level, other than Yedlin when he got over his injury. Both goalkeepers have to go now, and get that young Mexican dual citizen in there. I agree up front that Jordan Morris is all running and not much skill with the ball at his feet.

Deuce is done. Let's hope he can get one more goal and then retire, just to be top scorer over Landon Donovan. Bradley is kind of an anchor on this team, and I mean that both ways - he gives them experience, but he also drags them down with his obvious limitations. We should never see Beasley on the national team again. Altidore often flatters to deceive, but he showed good link up play with Pulisic, so I'd keep him around until we get somebody better.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

re promotion/relegation

The owners are MLS owners and not team owners. They buy into a share of MLS then manage a team. So if MLS expands into an 18 team premiership and a 12 team second league, there wouldn't be a huge difference in profits for the owners.

As to competition, it would give incentive to teams like New England to spend extra money on designated players to stay in the top division.

re Team USA

We play at a snails pace. That kills us. Part of that is our talent. Part of that IMO is MLS. I have been to a bunch of games here and in Europe. There is a big difference. We need an identity/style. We aren't ever going to put skill teams so we might as well go the athleticism route. The US has access to the best training facilities and nutrition in the world. That is our competitive advantage. Use it to have a team that plays 90 mins of hell.

 

[DeGrozz]

re promotion/relegation

The owners are MLS owners and not team owners. They buy into a share of MLS then manage a team. So if MLS expands into an 18 team premiership and a 12 team second league, there wouldn't be a huge difference in profits for the owners.

As to competition, it would give incentive to teams like New England to spend extra money on designated players to stay in the top division.

This isn't necessarily correct regarding the single entity system.

What the single entity ownership system does is control TV contracts, apparel contracts, player contracts, etc. That means most contracts in the MLS are with the single entity. So MLS will pay players, run MLS marketing, control central headquarters, etc. It's up to the individual investors/owners to run their teams. The individual owners remit a fraction of revenues from concession sales, gates, player transfers, etc back to the single entity (who use it to pay players, run the league office, whatever), but they still maintain the majority of their revenues to pay its own operating costs (run local advertising, pay ticket reps, maintain stadiums, pay DP salaries, etc). Obviously anything left over is their profit.

Even with a single entity system, there is a wide range of how successful clubs can be. For example, even though LAG and Chivas USA shared an almost identical cost structure (same salary cap, same stadium), LAG became significantly more successful while Chivas USA folded because it couldn't put fans in the seats.

The difference between having 20K in the stands (the approximate attendance for an MLS game) and 4-5K in the stands (the approximate attendance for an NASL or USL game) is absolutely huge for clubs and would certainly cause clubs to fold because they wouldn't have enough money to cover their basic costs. That's why its not feasible to implement pro/rel before a lot more FC Cincinnati type teams start popping up.

 

[Alsacs]

This isn't necessarily correct regarding the single entity system.

What the single entity ownership system does is control TV contracts, apparel contracts, player contracts, etc. That means most contracts in the MLS are with the single entity. So MLS will pay players, run MLS marketing, control central headquarters, etc. It's up to the individual investors/owners to run their teams. The individual owners remit a fraction of revenues from concession sales, gates, player transfers, etc back to the single entity (who use it to pay players, run the league office, whatever), but they still maintain the majority of their revenues to pay its own operating costs (run local advertising, pay ticket reps, maintain stadiums, pay DP salaries, etc). Obviously anything left over is their profit.

Even with a single entity system, there is a wide range of how successful clubs can be. For example, even though LAG and Chivas USA shared an almost identical cost structure (same salary cap, same stadium), LAG became significantly more successful while Chivas USA folded because it couldn't put fans in the seats.

The difference between having 20K in the stands (the approximate attendance for an MLS game) and 4-5K in the stands (the approximate attendance for an NASL or USL game) is absolutely huge for clubs and would certainly cause clubs to fold because they wouldn't have enough money to cover their basic costs. That's why its not feasible to implement pro/rel before a lot more FC Cincinnati type teams start popping up.

The pro/reg system would have to follow the European model and give teams relegated their TV money spread out to cover the loss of being dropped down.

If the MLS got 30 solid teams and had 18 in the top division and 12 in the second division it could work.
2 teams get dropped and the then winner of the second division promoted and they could have 4 team playoff with teams 2-5 in the second division for promotion.

Bob Kraft has turf and doesn’t spend money for the revolution that could help them because he has no incentive.

It’s not a coincidence that the popular teams have good ownership.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

This isn't necessarily correct regarding the single entity system.

What the single entity ownership system does is control TV contracts, apparel contracts, player contracts, etc. That means most contracts in the MLS are with the single entity. So MLS will pay players, run MLS marketing, control central headquarters, etc. It's up to the individual investors/owners to run their teams. The individual owners remit a fraction of revenues from concession sales, gates, player transfers, etc back to the single entity (who use it to pay players, run the league office, whatever), but they still maintain the majority of their revenues to pay its own operating costs (run local advertising, pay ticket reps, maintain stadiums, pay DP salaries, etc). Obviously anything left over is their profit.

Even with a single entity system, there is a wide range of how successful clubs can be. For example, even though LAG and Chivas USA shared an almost identical cost structure (same salary cap, same stadium), LAG became significantly more successful while Chivas USA folded because it couldn't put fans in the seats.

The difference between having 20K in the stands (the approximate attendance for an MLS game) and 4-5K in the stands (the approximate attendance for an NASL or USL game) is absolutely huge for clubs and would certainly cause clubs to fold because they wouldn't have enough money to cover their basic costs. That's why its not feasible to implement pro/rel before a lot more FC Cincinnati type teams start popping up.

TV contracts is where the most income comes from not ticket sales.

NASL teams have zero shot at making the MLS. An MLS II team would. That alone will get attendance closer to 10k.

The DP players won't play in MLS II so they would be loaned to MLS Premier teams which cuts costs.

If you keep MLS II small it would work. Twelve teams playing 22 matches. Top 2 get promoted. Next four are in a playoff with the winner moving up. That keeps 6 spots for 12 teams and season long interest.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

I don't like the conference setup but you could keep it. Total 36 MLS teams. 24 in Premier and 12 in II. East West splits give you:

MLS Premier

East 12 teams. Top 6 make the playoffs like today. Bottom team gets relegated. 10th and 11th play a relegation playoff. West has same setup. 34 league games like current 1 game vs other conference teams and 2 games within conference.

MLS II

East 6 teams. 1st place gets promoted. 2nd and 3rd have playoff for promotion. West same setup. 22 games two vs each opponent.

 

[DeGrozz]

TV contracts is where the most income comes from not ticket sales.

NASL teams have zero shot at making the MLS. An MLS II team would. That alone will get attendance closer to 10k.

The DP players won't play in MLS II so they would be loaned to MLS Premier teams which cuts costs.

If you keep MLS II small it would work. Twelve teams playing 22 matches. Top 2 get promoted. Next four are in a playoff with the winner moving up. That keeps 6 spots for 12 teams and season long interest.

Again, I don't think what you are saying is correct. TV contracts is not where most of the income comes from. The MLS TV deal is only $90 million. That money does not even cover the base salaries and allocation money that the MLS pays out. Adding a bunch of smaller market, less supported teams, isn't going to increase everyone's piece of the pie. The league's merchandising deals are only worth $125 million. Clubs primarily survive off of ownership investment, sponsorships, fans in the door, and expansion fees that are remitted back to the clubs.

So I guess the questions are:

1 - If NASL teams have zero shots at making the MLS, where's the extra talent going to come from? Talent is thin as it is and there are few other options to get more players with the roster rules. The talent pool is not going to automatically expand because the MLS sets up teams in small markets. We are essentially creating USL/NASL v2.0 or 3.0, you can call a rose by any other name but...

2 - It's expected that new teams to the MLS will have soccer specific stadiums. In order to be suitable for an 'MLS premier division' it would need to be at least 18K (SJ's stadium size as a minimum measurement). I'm not sure how hoping to get 10K 17 times a year invigorates investors to spend 100's of millions in investment. And to Alsacs point, I'm not sure it's going to incentivize a guy like Kraft to move forward on a SSS in the city limits of Boston.

3 - How do you attract DP talent if you say 'yeah, we'll pay you now, but there's a chance you get shipped to Salt Lake City, Utah in 9 months if we don't stay up. You can sign on the dotted line.'

I just don't see how anyone could thing a second division makes sense right now. We don't have the infrastructure, we don't have the talent pool, and we don't have a fanbase that can support it... yet. Hopefully in 20 years it can be a serious conversation though.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Again, I don't think what you are saying is correct. TV contracts is not where most of the income comes from. The MLS TV deal is only $90 million. That money does not even cover the base salaries and allocation money that the MLS pays out. Adding a bunch of smaller market, less supported teams, isn't going to increase everyone's piece of the pie. The league's merchandising deals are only worth $125 million. Clubs primarily survive off of ownership investment, sponsorships, fans in the door, and expansion fees that are remitted back to the clubs.

So I guess the questions are:

1 - If NASL teams have zero shots at making the MLS, where's the extra talent going to come from? Talent is thin as it is and there are few other options to get more players with the roster rules. The talent pool is not going to automatically expand because the MLS sets up teams in small markets. We are essentially creating USL/NASL v2.0 or 3.0, you can call a rose by any other name but...

2 - It's expected that new teams to the MLS will have soccer specific stadiums. In order to be suitable for an 'MLS premier division' it would need to be at least 18K (SJ's stadium size as a minimum measurement). I'm not sure how hoping to get 10K 17 times a year invigorates investors to spend 100's of millions in investment. And to Alsacs point, I'm not sure it's going to incentivize a guy like Kraft to move forward on a SSS in the city limits of Boston.

3 - How do you attract DP talent if you say 'yeah, we'll pay you now, but there's a chance you get shipped to Salt Lake City, Utah in 9 months if we don't stay up. You can sign on the dotted line.'

I just don't see how anyone could thing a second division makes sense right now. We don't have the infrastructure, we don't have the talent pool, and we don't have a fanbase that can support it... yet. Hopefully in 20 years it can be a serious conversation though.

1. I agree there isn't enough talent. A two tier MLS actually helps that. Garber wants to expand past 30 teams. Would you rather see 24 Premier teams with the best talent in MLS or 32 MLS teams with same talent pool? NASL would die which it is on the way too anyway.

2. MLS is a long term investment.

3. DP players can still choose where they go on loan. Also do you think outside of NY or LA these guys care where they play? So how is it different?

Relegation would happen when MLS expands past 30 teams. That is far from right now. It will be at least a dozen years.