What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

World Cup Soccer XVII: There can only be ONE!!!11!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: World Cup Soccer XVII: There can only be ONE!!!11!!!

Promotion/relegation in the US is also something that's likely to kill any attempt at a serious TV deal for whatever league were to try it. London isn't likely to have 0 teams in the premiership. The possibility of not having a NY/CHI/LA etc. market so Omaha, Biloxi, and Reno can move up isn't going to have a lot of fans in the media business.
 
Re: World Cup Soccer XVII: There can only be ONE!!!11!!!

blockski said:
On the subject of promotion and relegation, I'd highly recommend Wikipedia's summary of how both soccer and baseball's governing bodies evolved in England and the US, respectively.

Geography, professionalism, and monopoly all factor in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promotion_and_relegation#Historical_comparisons

Those factors (and how deeply ingrained some of them are, like professionalism and the association of sports and education in the US) make any substantive change for MLS highly unlikely.
Click to expand...

this whole thing about relegation is not much more than "one of these things is not like the other" syndrome. I don't think I've seen anybody make a case that relegation/promotion is to the benefit of US soccer.
 
Re: World Cup Soccer XVII: There can only be ONE!!!11!!!

collegehcky2 said:
With the US being practically the only nation that calls footballl soccer, does the league need to be rebranded? Major League Soccer definitely takes off of American sports model of naming, but to market the league better internationally would a top league named something like American Football Association? Or rather does actual football or the lack of international interest make this difficult?
Click to expand...
The problem MLS might have with that is that somebody else might already own the rights to American Football Association, and probably wouldn't let it go to them without a princely sum. And there's also the danger of rebranding here as well.

bronconick said:
Promotion/relegation in the US is also something that's likely to kill any attempt at a serious TV deal for whatever league were to try it. London isn't likely to have 0 teams in the premiership. The possibility of not having a NY/CHI/LA etc. market so Omaha, Biloxi, and Reno can move up isn't going to have a lot of fans in the media business.
Click to expand...

Yep. Promotion/Relegation just isn't going to work in North America. You just don't see schools in the NCAA getting knocked down a division because their football, bouncyball or hockey team stinks. Of course, if they went with points from the Directors Cup perhaps, they might have something, but it would still be a total mess.
 
Re: World Cup Soccer XVII: There can only be ONE!!!11!!!

Actually, several countries call it soccer.

Australia, South Africa, even parts of Ireland.
 
Re: World Cup Soccer XVII: There can only be ONE!!!11!!!

bigmrg74 said:
The problem MLS might have with that is that somebody else might already own the rights to American Football Association, and probably wouldn't let it go to them without a princely sum. And there's also the danger of rebranding here as well.
Click to expand...

Rebranding MLS to use the word "football" would be like sticking a loaded M-16 in your mouth and pulling the trigger. Same effect.
 
Re: World Cup Soccer XVII: There can only be ONE!!!11!!!

bronconick said:
Promotion/relegation in the US is also something that's likely to kill any attempt at a serious TV deal for whatever league were to try it. London isn't likely to have 0 teams in the premiership. The possibility of not having a NY/CHI/LA etc. market so Omaha, Biloxi, and Reno can move up isn't going to have a lot of fans in the media business.
Click to expand...

London makes New York look pedestrian. New York's got three hockey teams? London's got five teams in the Premier League right now.

Other than Stoke, the teams are pretty clustered. Five in London, four in Birmingham/Midlands, eight in Manchester/Lancashire, and two in Tyne and Wear.
 
Re: World Cup Soccer XVII: There can only be ONE!!!11!!!

Terrierbyassociation said:
Actually, several countries call it soccer.

Australia, South Africa, even parts of Ireland.
Click to expand...
I loved the ESPN article talking about how we shouldn't feel bad about calling it soccer since it was an english term and the arrogant english only recently (relatively) stuck their nose up at those of us that call it soccer.
 
Re: World Cup Soccer XVII: There can only be ONE!!!11!!!

Shirtless Guy said:
I loved the ESPN article talking about how we shouldn't feel bad about calling it soccer since it was an english term and the arrogant english only recently (relatively) stuck their nose up at those of us that call it soccer.
Click to expand...

its another story of "the US went one way, everybody else went another"... it happened, it isn't the end of the world, please somebody get over it.
 
Re: World Cup Soccer XVII: There can only be ONE!!!11!!!

Shirtless Guy said:
I loved the ESPN article talking about how we shouldn't feel bad about calling it soccer since it was an english term and the arrogant english only recently (relatively) stuck their nose up at those of us that call it soccer.
Click to expand...

They used both terms, it was more like association football, they kind of say it socca. They really don't say it the way Americans do, with pronouncing the Rs.
 
Re: World Cup Soccer XVII: There can only be ONE!!!11!!!

Red Cloud said:
London makes New York look pedestrian. New York's got three hockey teams? London's got five teams in the Premier League right now.

Other than Stoke, the teams are pretty clustered. Five in London, four in Birmingham/Midlands, eight in Manchester/Lancashire, and two in Tyne and Wear.
Click to expand...

And those clusters are very close to each other. Even the earliest days of the National League featured teams in both Boston and St. Louis - a distance comparable to between Madrid and Frankfurt.

If you wanted to match the concentration of the EPL in the US, you'd basically need to cram 20 teams into the Boston-Washington corridor.
 
Re: World Cup Soccer XVII: There can only be ONE!!!11!!!

collegehcky2 said:
The more interesting part of the conversation to me was does the North American soccer system need to be more centralized? As in do developmental leagues have the resources available to allow for a promotion/demotion system similar to the EPL?

When the MLS grows enough could perhaps the top-2 in the USL be promoted and the bottom-2 in the MLS be demoted? Or is the commitment by cities and teams to build soccer-specific stadiums too integral on top division play to allow for demotion?

Or could it be seen as an incentive for smaller market teams to invest more into the teams knowing that with good play they are able to reach the MLS?
Click to expand...

There is ZERO chance that pro/rel will happen in the foreseeable future in U.S. soccer. It's an artifact of the different way professional systems developed elsewhere in the world, in contrast to the franchise system that underlies all of our professional sports. It simply doesn't make business sense to MLS or its owners.

Furthermore, it's not really necessary in a playoff system. The European leagues rely on the relegation fight (and the fight for European places) to maintain excitement at the end of the season for clubs that are not involved in the title chase. MLS (like the other U.S. professional leagues) has battle to make the playoffs. Pro/rel institutionalizes severe inequalities in ability to field a competitive team, so absent a compelling reason to institute it, it's really a pretty bad idea.
 
Last edited:
Re: World Cup Soccer XVII: There can only be ONE!!!11!!!

I don't know blockski, you really think expansion makes for stronger teams? I agree it's nice to see more markets and fans come into the league, but as for play on the field, I think there's a pretty set number of MLS quality players. The more teams you add, the more that talent gets stretched out.
 
Re: World Cup Soccer XVII: There can only be ONE!!!11!!!

WeWantMore said:
I don't know blockski, you really think expansion makes for stronger teams? I agree it's nice to see more markets and fans come into the league, but as for play on the field, I think there's a pretty set number of MLS quality players. The more teams you add, the more that talent gets stretched out.
Click to expand...

John was talking about expansion pushing the league towards bankruptcy, with a not so veiled reference to the NHL.

Quality of play and financial health are two different things. Unlike the NHL, MLS already has cost containment in place.

As far as the talent pool goes, it's a much broader pool. There's a global talent market to choose from...
 
Re: World Cup Soccer XVII: There can only be ONE!!!11!!!

blockski said:
John was talking about expansion pushing the league towards bankruptcy, with a not so veiled reference to the NHL.

Quality of play and financial health are two different things. Unlike the NHL, MLS already has cost containment in place.

As far as the talent pool goes, it's a much broader pool. There's a global talent market to choose from...
Click to expand...


As WeWantMore posted, I was talking about expansion thinning the limited talent pool too far. MLS has a limited pool of recognizable names. If four or five of these guys are on the same team, that can be marketed, but we are reaching the point where each franchise only has one or two recognizable players. In the long term Kyle Beckerman can't carry a franchise by himself. Thinning the talent also limits your major TV access. Donovon, Beckham and Buddle all on the same team will garner some network TV interest that any of the three alone cannot. The more you expand, the less quality on the field, the less access you'll have to national media.

My thinly veiled reference was to the NASL. They expanded themselves to death. By the time they realigned with 12 solid franchises, they were too much of a joke to continue.

You mention the international talent pool, but that can only be accessed with cash. The cash a team gets from filling a 30,000 seat stadium can keep a respectable team on the field. You can't access the international talent pool without the money media brings in. MLS can't compete with Uruguay or Denmark for players currently. If you are dividing the media pie among too many teams you've shot yourself in the football. MLS can easily expand to the point of economic inefficiency. They are already half way there.



One note on promotion/relegation. As mentioned, team/stadium owners would never go for it. I think there is a better chance of the top EPL clubs breaking away from the structure and forming a non-pro-rel super league than the idea of pro/rel expanding to the US.
 
Last edited:
Re: World Cup Soccer XVII: There can only be ONE!!!11!!!

So we all know the FIFA World Rankings are crap and were reverse engineered, but here are the new ones.

Rankings

1 Spain (2)
2 Netherlands (4)
3 Brazil (1)
4 Germany (6)
5 Argentina (7)
6 Uruguay (16)
7 England (8)
8 Portugal (3)
9 Egypt (12)
10 Chile (18)
11 Italy (5)
12 Greece (13)
13 USA (14)

24 Mexico (17)

I know Egypt is arguably the best team in Africa, but they are not a top 10 team.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top