A long strange trip, but neither long nor particularly strange.

The North American Soccer League (NASL) forum
User avatar
Pounder
Site Admin
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 7:01 pm
Location: Portland freaking Oregon!

A long strange trip, but neither long nor particularly strange.

Post by Pounder » Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:21 am

A Brian Quarstad piece today...

http://www.insidemnsoccer.com/2011/01/21/breaking-news-ussf-concerned-with-nasl-sanctioning-of-d2-pro-soccer-for-2011-season/

Quarstad has already tweeted an update saying that USSF voted down D-2 sanctioning for the NASL. They'll either have to compete as 3rd division, or, well, um... perhaps not at all.

I strongly suspect, unless Traffic wants to expand their shady agency dealings by supplying a whole league with talent they've signed, that this will all blow away with the breeze.

Not that this helps USL.
Mean Spirited Blogger #107

User avatar
Sam Hill
Site Admin
Posts: 4142
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 3:29 am
Location: Denver, CO

Post by Sam Hill » Mon Jan 24, 2011 11:04 pm

Pounder? I just met 'er!

Sorry, I'm sure you've heard that one before.

I haven't kept up with all these goings-on, except peripherally, but now that I read back on what's been going on...man, that sounds like a mess, doesn't it?
Old enough to remember when bashing the ABA was fun.

User avatar
preeths
Site Admin
Posts: 8457
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 11:34 pm
Contact:

Post by preeths » Tue Jan 25, 2011 2:51 pm

This makes indoor football look good in comparison.

User avatar
logoguru
Site Admin
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 2:03 pm

Post by logoguru » Thu Jan 27, 2011 9:29 pm

The new rules are arbitrary and stupid. 75% of teams must be in a market of 750,000 or more???? It makes no sense. Teams can be successful in a smaller market if they're the only game in town. Doesn't make sense. The Chico Rooks were fairly successful in their heyday and under these rules Chico *may not* be able to have a team *if* 7.5 of the teams are in big cities and Chico is #11.

The NASL will appeal. But they need to find financiers and more teams.
________
FriskyRose
Last edited by logoguru on Mon Sep 12, 2011 2:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Sam Hill
Site Admin
Posts: 4142
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 3:29 am
Location: Denver, CO

Post by Sam Hill » Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:39 pm

Chico can't have a D2 team. There's nothing that says they can't have a team. They just can't have a D2 team. What league's Chico in now?

It makes absolute sense.
Old enough to remember when bashing the ABA was fun.

nksports
Site Admin
Posts: 3668
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 7:53 am
Location: Newton, KS (the land of Oz)

just some pondering

Post by nksports » Fri Jan 28, 2011 6:18 am

I would think the net worth of the owner(s) would be a more important figure than the size of the metro area. According to a chart I looked up on Wikipedia (which is good for an in-the-ballpark figure), there are 68 metro areas 750,000 and above. El Paso is the smallest.

Now using the English FA Champions League as a comparison, if England can have 24 teams in its second division, then there should be 144 U.S. D-2 teams (it also means the MLS should expand to 120 teams). (Divide the population of England by the number of teams in the FA Champions league, then divide the population of the US by 2,143,383 -- the ratio of English population per Champions League teams).

It was telling that there were no standards listed for D3.

Now while all that number crunching may or may not be interesting to anybody, I wonder if the D2 standards are in place to try and identify possible MLS markets in the future.

User avatar
Sam Hill
Site Admin
Posts: 4142
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 3:29 am
Location: Denver, CO

Post by Sam Hill » Sat Jan 29, 2011 2:07 pm

"nksports" wrote:Now using the English FA Champions League as a comparison, if England can have 24 teams in its second division, then there should be 144 U.S. D-2 teams (it also means the MLS should expand to 120 teams). (Divide the population of England by the number of teams in the FA Champions league, then divide the population of the US by 2,143,383 -- the ratio of English population per Champions League teams).


That completely ignores all the societal differences between the US and England and the presence of 122 other major league sports teams in our country that England doesn't have.

That's insane. We're not matchsticks, we're people in societies who act very different from each other.

You know what population is a predictor of? Traffic.

India has 1.2 billion people but only 14 teams in its top-flight soccer league. What are they doing wrong?
Old enough to remember when bashing the ABA was fun.

nksports
Site Admin
Posts: 3668
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 7:53 am
Location: Newton, KS (the land of Oz)

Post by nksports » Sun Jan 30, 2011 3:18 am

My good fellow, I am not advocating 260-some teams on the top two levels of the U.S. Soccer Pyramid. The Good Lord knows, we're having trouble finding a dozen teams that can survive D II play.
I agree with the spirit of many of the U.S. Soccer guidelines. But it seemed like in some areas U.S. Soccer was doing the same thing -- throwing out some numbers. Some of the guidelines are good -- 5,000-seat stadiums. Some were reaching -- I don't know how many people with $20 million in assets are even looking to own a soccer team.
If a solid owner wants to set up a team in Chico (or Dayton, Ohio, or Colorado Springs), why not give it a try? If the U.S. Soccer guidlines were applied to the NFL, who wants to be the one to tell Green Bay it has to move or fold?

mikeyratt
Site Admin
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 8:01 am
Location: right behind you

Post by mikeyratt » Fri May 06, 2011 6:15 pm

Forwhat ever reason, the USSF wants nothing at all to do with the NASL, hence their exclusion from the US Open Cup. As soon as Traffic and the NASL dry up and go away, I strongly suspect the "standards" for second division soccer will either disappear altogether or be ignored.

User avatar
Pounder
Site Admin
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 7:01 pm
Location: Portland freaking Oregon!

Post by Pounder » Wed Jul 03, 2013 7:50 pm

Funny to go back through this. Remember when NASL was toast?

They're at least turning out crowds at the level the USL's old A-League was at a few years ago, minus perhaps a Rochester / Montreal / Portland chart-topper, but only really Edmonton as a straggler.

Curious to find out (1) if Puerto Rico returns as scheduled and (2) if the Cosmos draw.
Mean Spirited Blogger #107

Post Reply

Return to “NASL”