PDA

View Full Version : Apparently, the MLS Model is working



Jack
07-12-2009, 09:39 AM
Having a look at the standings this morning...

Whatever you may think of the level of play in the league, there is certainly some decent parity. On any given night, there is a chance for anyone to beat anyone. With the exception of a few bottom-feeders, (New York, San Jose and Dallas) I look at the standings of both the east and the west and everyone is a solid few games from contention (especially New England, who have games in hand).

So what does this tell me?

There are 11 teams that are in the mix. I know that there are solid favourites to win it all, but having 11 of 14 teams within a few games of one another is not a bad thing in my opinion. A lot more interesting than having 4 teams who have a realistic expectation of being champion.

Get In There
07-12-2009, 09:57 AM
I guess it's all relative

Is a rising tide raising all boats (quality of play) or is it a low tide that is keeping everyone together.

As long as the quality of play is increasing season over season yes, the more in the race the better.

The push and playoffs (if we're in) are going to be fun this year.

But i really don;t pay much mind to the standings till the last 3 games (since everyone is still in a pack)

B

dupont
07-12-2009, 10:02 AM
But i really don;t pay much mind to the standings till the last 3 games (since everyone is still in a pack)

I hear this. I don't even look at the standings too much because I know it's always damn close. This tells me that every single game of the season is important since it will be close the whole way and 2 or 3 extra points here or there can be the difference from making the playoffs or missing them again.
It makes all the games pretty damn exciting to watch when I think of it that way!

Beach_Red
07-12-2009, 10:03 AM
Having a look at the standings this morning...

Whatever you may think of the level of play in the league, there is certainly some decent parity. On any given night, there is a chance for anyone to beat anyone. With the exception of a few bottom-feeders, (New York, San Jose and Dallas) I look at the standings of both the east and the west and everyone is a solid few games from contention (especially New England, who have games in hand).

So what does this tell me?

There are 11 teams that are in the mix. I know that there are solid favourites to win it all, but having 11 of 14 teams within a few games of one another is not a bad thing in my opinion. A lot more interesting than having 4 teams who have a realistic expectation of being champion.

That one hurts, after our results against them this year.

Jack
07-12-2009, 10:05 AM
I hear this. I don't even look at the standings too much because I know it's always damn close. This tells me that every single game of the season is important since it will be close the whole way and 2 or 3 extra points here or there can be the difference from making the playoffs or missing them again.
It makes all the games pretty damn exciting to watch when I think of it that way!
And this is exactly the point.

I realize the quality of the league is not the greatest, though it is getting better.

But the fact that there are a lot of teams all in the hunt certainly does make it interesting and makes the games all mean something.

dupont
07-12-2009, 10:16 AM
And this is exactly the point.

I realize the quality of the league is not the greatest, though it is getting better.

But the fact that there are a lot of teams all in the hunt certainly does make it interesting and makes the games all mean something.

yep. I totally agree with you. I've been saying this for a while to people I know as well.
It keeps is exciting but an added benefit is that it's better for overall attendance. Until soccer is a very mainstream sport in the US, you can't have teams losing every season with no hope of ever winning the cup like it is in Europe.

ensco
07-12-2009, 10:26 AM
I think this is only partly true. You need a dynasty or two, the teams everyone strives to be and maybe loves to hate, to go along with the parity. Otherwise you don't care enough about any games that your team is not playing.

I think the NFL is the model in this, as in most things. They have parity, dynasties, and they have the Cowboys.

Parity is hard to achieve, though. You're right about that. No sport aside from the NFL and MLS has it.

boban
07-12-2009, 10:29 AM
I think the NFL is the model in this, as in most things. They have parity, dynasties, and they have the Steelers.
Fixed your post. ;)

CretanBull
07-12-2009, 10:45 AM
I'm fine with a league that has rules in place which encourage parity, but at the same time I think that there are problems with the MLS system and if the league wants to be taken seriously some changes are needed.

I understand the historical reasons for having an over-protective governing body to protect the owners/managers from themselves. In growing the sport in North America, a slow but steady approach made sense. Having said that, at some point the league has to open itself up and take a sink-or-swim approach.

First and foremost, the MLS has to do away with all of its shady accounting practices. Having a low cap, having some players count against the cap, other players not count against the cap, sometimes only a portion of a player's salary count against the cap etc. are all unnecessary complications. Generation Adidas, DP slots, and especially the allocation money system don't lend themselves to transparency.

To make it to the next step, the league needs to adopt a hardcap of about $10 million. Under a hardcap, they can do away with all the DP rule, allocation money, GA etc. Each team should be allowed to spend $10 million, with every penny of every contract counting against that cap. A higher cap number will allow MLS teams to attract better players which will improve its TV and attendence numbers. Soccer is a wildly popular sport in Canada and America, the biggest problem is that there's nothing "Major League" about the MLS. The safety net that helped the league get off the ground is now holding it back.

In order for a $10 million cap to work, the league needs to do three things.

1)They have to set up (or rather expand) a fair system of revenue sharing.

2) They need to take a hard stand and set a date by which all teams have to be in a SSS with natural grass.

3) Most importantly, they need to be honest with themselves about what teams/markets work and which don't. Teams like Toronto and Seatle should be the standard, not the exceptions.

rocker
07-12-2009, 10:48 AM
i agree with Jack. 11 of 14 still in it means fans don't lose hope. That's great for a league that's trying to grow fans. Fans know they can show up and anything can happen. They don't get discouraged.

I dunno about the dynasty model. Personally I never watched baseball or hockey games that weren't by my team anyways (yes, maybe in the playoffs or finals, but not regular season games). I don't sit down and watch Yankees versus Kansas City on an August afternoon because the Yankees are so well known. But one way big teams are made are not just through winning but from media coverage. Some teams get much more media coverage across the country, so people get to know them.

koryo
07-12-2009, 10:54 AM
Agreed. The MLS is hitting (has hit) something of a watershed in that it's reaching the end of its beginning. It needs to throw off the shackles a bit and get its own house in order. The following would be of use:

1. weed out the weak markets (Columbus, Kansas City etc). Part of expanding a league is knowing when to contract (or replace, given the number of good cities starting up in the next 2-3 years).

2. up the cap. $10 million might be a bit high, but upping it to $5-6 and allowing teams to spend another $2 on top of that, which is then taxed by the league. Yes, I'm talking about a luxury tax.

3. SSS, natural grass. Take the lead in bringing the officiating level up to a passable international standard.

4. Become recognized by FIFA.

The real trick, of course, is keep parity in the league, but loosen the reigns a bit so that teams who are more effective in using their resources (and have more resources) can raise the competitive bar. The teams that currently being propped up by the rest of the league need to either a) fold and have their talent distributed through the league or b) relocate to better markets.

Beach_Red
07-12-2009, 10:59 AM
1. weed out the weak markets (Columbus, Kansas City etc). Part of expanding a league is knowing when to contract (or replace, given the number of good cities starting up in the next 2-3 years).



This is true. Right now it's kind of like the old NBA/ABA with teams in Rochester and Syracuse and other small markets. They were the only places the leagues could get started but they moved on.

BayernTFC
07-12-2009, 11:10 AM
While it does look like the model is working at the moment, I would like to add my concern over the lack of a strong structural player development initiative by MLS now that the reserve league has been removed and developmental roster spots have been reduced. There is plenty of competition for players and there needs to be a viable source for replacements if other leagues start poaching talent. RSL's Yura Movsisyan will be playing in Europe in January for Randers FC in Denmark:

http://www.sltrib.com/realsaltlake/ci_12812649

Beckham will be in Europe by then too. Who's next?

Beach_Red
07-12-2009, 11:26 AM
^ Yes, it seems MLS is really modelling itself after the NFL and leaving all development up to the NCAA.

tlear
07-12-2009, 11:30 AM
Problem with parity is that MLS clubs in international competitions are severely handicapped. As CONCACAF CL becomes bigger it wll be embarrassing to have all MLS clubs eliminated in the first couple rounds

CretanBull
07-12-2009, 11:32 AM
^^ Losing players to AC Milan happens to most leagues in the world, but we shouldn't be losing our talent to Denmark.

Beach_Red
07-12-2009, 11:34 AM
^ And those are both results of the same problem - the low salary cap. When it goes up MLS can keep the next level up of player and the teams will do better in international games.

Five more years and the league will have enough solid teams in pace to cut loose the worst markets and move up a level or two.

CretanBull
07-12-2009, 11:36 AM
2. up the cap. $10 million might be a bit high, but upping it to $5-6 and allowing teams to spend another $2 on top of that, which is then taxed by the league. Yes, I'm talking about a luxury tax.


I didn't mean to imply that we could make the cap $10 million tomorrow, but rather in a league with revenue sharing, where all the teams were in SSS and the weaker teams have been relocated to stronger markets.

As for the $5-$6 million range, with all the weird rules in place there are teams who are already paying out that much. LA's actual salary is around $9 million, if TFC signed JDG we'd be up around $6 million...it's only with all the shady accounting that both teams are under the $2.3 million salary cap.

Oldtimer
07-12-2009, 11:39 AM
Agreed about the parity issue.

If the league was going to have a dynasty, it would have been the Galaxy. I'm not sure we would have liked Beckham, Landycakes & Co. getting even more special treatment than they already have.

Dynasties are great if your team is one of them. If they aren't, it's hard. When the Jays were the top spender, people were happy. Now that its the Yankees, and the Jays are shut out of the playoffs every year, it's not so nice.

I actually agree with promoting parity. MLS may take it too far, but its a good concept. Now where I'd like parity to go out the window is not in market size, but in Youth Academies. Clubs which develop their youth should have unrestricted rights over those players: to sign them for first team, to slot them into the first team for a single match, etc. Vancouver would be the most deserving under that system, New York and Toronto would also benefit. Teams that aren't doing too much *cough* LA *cough* would get what they deserve.

CretanBull
07-12-2009, 11:43 AM
^ And those are both results of the same problem - the low salary cap. When it goes up MLS can keep the next level up of player and the teams will do better in international games.

Five more years and the league will have enough solid teams in pace to cut loose the worst markets and move up a level or two.

It should be seen as an embarassment to the league that American kids who are the product of the NCAA system are opting for careers in Denmark over the MLS. If they can get signed on in Spain, England, Italy, Germany that's understandable and the reality of the sport - we have to accept that the best players will end up in one of those countries. But theres no way that a guy like Movsisyan should have to leave the MLS for Denmark....

greatwhitenorf
07-12-2009, 11:49 AM
I agree about raising the cap but I can understand MLS holding off just a bit longer. They've undertaken some ambitious expansion that is bringing more soccer specific stadiums on line. But they have two markets - KC and SJ - that still need to have some protection while they play in temporary homes. They just can't generate gate receipts like we or other better supported clubs can.

That can't go on forever. There has to be some progress soon in getting stadiums built. But I find it acceptable, even commendable, that MLS isn't hastily abandoning some founding principles to make some clubs more competitive in Concacaf CL

Yohan
07-12-2009, 12:05 PM
KC's new stadium is coming in what, 2 yrs.

IMO I'd like increase in roster spots more than a substantial raise in cap. Depth is what the league needs right now

Cashcleaner
07-12-2009, 12:43 PM
I don't think the model is working, to be honest. Or maybe to put it in a better way, it's working, but the league isn't exactly flourishing because of it.

Don't get me wrong, I like the fact that our league isn't dominated by one or two clubs and the others are struggling to remain competitive, but if creating parity is a way to bring in financial stability through a relatively level playing field in terms of talent, I don't think its working. In 2008 the league had only 3 clubs turning a profit which is certainly less than ideal. And while there is parity on the field, there is a huge gap between teams such as the Galaxy and Wizards when it comes to revenue.

I think parity on the pitch would eventually translate to a more economically stable league, but at the moment I don't think it's going to help as much as a new marketing strategy or revenue-sharing agreement.

Super
07-12-2009, 12:53 PM
I truly do hate this model. Why don't we just flip a coin and select the winner at random that way. At the end of it all it's pretty random who wins anyway - no advantages given to clubs with greater history, wealth, support, or location. No opponent is more interesting than any other, and no dynasty will ever form in this league. No team will stand out - good or bad. It's as boring as a baseball game that runs 26 innings with the winner found on a lucky hit.

So yeah, I have an intense hate for any sort of forced parity in sports. It's handicap at its worst, and takes all the fun out of the game. No wonder the world laughs at the Mickey Soccer League. I know I do. And I only watch our games - I don't care about the rest. It's all random who wins anyway. No surprises. It's like a league for old men with a heart condition who can't handle too much excitement.

Thankfully, though, BMO has a great atmosphere, and I share the experience of watching a game with a great bunch of people, and that's the reason why I go. That, and the fact that it's all I can get - so I take it.

Yohan
07-12-2009, 01:01 PM
I truly do hate this model. Why don't we just flip a coin and select the winner at random that way. At the end of it all it's pretty random who wins anyway - no advantages given to clubs with greater history, wealth, support, or location. No opponent is more interesting than any other, and no dynasty will ever form in this league. No team will stand out - good or bad. It's as boring as a baseball game that runs 26 innings with the winner found on a lucky hit.

So yeah, I have an intense hate for any sort of forced parity in sports. It's handicap at its worst, and takes all the fun out of the game. No wonder the world laughs at the Mickey Soccer League. I know I do. And I only watch our games - I don't care about the rest. It's all random who wins anyway. No surprises. It's like a league for old men with a heart condition who can't handle too much excitement.
so you'd rather have predictability instead?

i barely watch any top 4 teams in EPL matches because it's so damn predictable

Beach_Red
07-12-2009, 01:01 PM
I truly do hate this model. Why don't we just flip a coin and select the winner at random that way. At the end of it all it's pretty random who wins anyway - no advantages given to clubs with greater history, wealth, support, or location. No opponent is more interesting than any other, and no dynasty will ever form in this league. No team will stand out - good or bad. It's as boring as a baseball game that runs 26 innings with the winner found on a lucky hit.

So yeah, I have an intense hate for any sort of forced parity in sports. It's handicap at its worst, and takes all the fun out of the game. No wonder the world laughs at the Mickey Soccer League. I know I do. And I only watch our games - I don't care about the rest. It's all random who wins anyway.

I disagree, it doesn't take the fun out at all. The only thing it removes is the ability to buy a winner. Sure, there are no advantages given to tradition or location - just to superior managment, coaching and scouting that put together the superior team.

As always we come back to the NFL as the model. 32 financially stable teams with no debt and sold-out stadiums. And yet some teams win far more often than others. Pittsburgh and Detroit play by the same rules but have vastly different success on the field.

Dynasties emerge even under the salary cap rules and they will in MLS, too. They are already. They are much more difficult to maintain as the gap won't grow as big between big-money and small-money teams, but that's part of the fun.

ilikemusic
07-12-2009, 01:04 PM
Parity = Mediocrity

I hate parity with a passion. It makes everything dull and in-consequential. Victories and defeats are devoid of any significant meaning because both results are equally plausible.

I hate parity in the NHL, I hate it in MLS, I hate it in the NFL, and I especially hate it in the CFL.

Competition, at it's heart, isnt meant to be everybody sharing championships and victories equally amongst participants.

There should be no regard paid to the weak or disadvantaged. Sports should be a ruthless meritocracy.

'Parity' is the worst buzz-word sports marketers have ever come up with. It defeats the purpose of competition itself and I am consistently shocked that so many people subscribe to it.

Its just a nice way of saying 'nobody is really any good'.

Yohan
07-12-2009, 01:11 PM
if you like BORING football with predictable results whenever a big team plays, stick with European football

Super
07-12-2009, 01:12 PM
so you'd rather have predictability instead?

i barely watch any top 4 teams in EPL matches because it's so damn predictable

Then you are one of very few football fans who ignore that league. The rest of the world is watching. Also, EVERY European league operate under a no salary cap model. When the world starts to watch our product I guess we can start to talk about having the solution. But for now, we're more like the North Korea holding on to communism vs. capitalism and free trade in the rest of the world. In sports terms of course ;)

Also, aren't you concerned that MOST fans of teams in the MLS doesn't watch other games in the league? Why? Coz it's boring.

Super
07-12-2009, 01:13 PM
if you like BORING football with predictable results whenever a big team plays, stick with European football

And I do! Outside of TFC I follow the Prem and the Danish League. Much more fun - and not just because of the higher quality of play. You stick to your baseball coin-toss version of footy ;)

Yohan
07-12-2009, 01:17 PM
Then you are one of very few football fans who ignore that league. The rest of the world is watching. Also, EVERY European league operate under a no salary cap model. When the world starts to watch our product I guess we can start to talk about having the solution. But for now, we're more like the North Korea holding on to communism vs. capitalism and free trade in the rest of the world. In sports terms of course ;)

Also, aren't you concerned that MOST fans of teams in the MLS doesn't watch other games in the league? Why? Coz it's boring.
actually, I'm a Hammers supporter. but I watch a lot of mid table games, because it's way more interesting than seeing Chelski/Arse/Scouse/Man U scum win pretty much every time.

funny you speak of no salary cap, just how many big name clubs are so weighed in debt that it's going to crumble if somethiing happens and no big TV contracts anymore?

those leagues have years of history to build on and have started before modern times.

MLS is still an infant league that's still trying to get a semblance of stability to make room for future growth.

so you take MLS for what it is, and don't impose European model on MLS, because it simply WILL NOT work in current North American football environment

Yohan
07-12-2009, 01:23 PM
Just one more point.

MLS is a league that requires patience to follow. It is what it is.
If you can't accept MLS for what it is (a young league that is looking for financial stability in an unstable market) and that you won't get best quality of football, stick with European leagues.

MLS won't reach anything close to 2nd tier European leagues (Portugal, Holland, Belgium) for another 10 years by my estimate

Super
07-12-2009, 01:24 PM
actually, I'm a Hammers supporter. but I watch a lot of mid table games, because it's way more interesting than seeing Chelski/Arse/Scouse/Man U scum win pretty much every time.

funny you speak of no salary cap, just how many big name clubs are so weighed in debt that it's going to crumble if somethiing happens and no big TV contracts anymore?

Then they fold and go the route of Leeds. Others will take over. Either way, when Man Utd comes to town you're sure to have a sell out crowd. We have no such game in the MLS - and never will as long as our system is in place. There is no team that is more interesting than any other. And there is no easy game. It's random. What's fun about that? Flip a coin football. Sorry, but we'll just agree to disagree on this one. I'm tired of watching empty stadiums in cities in the MLS who couldn't care less about football fielding as good a team as ours - when we're a city that actually do care about the sport. We put all of our hard earned money into the team, and yet the product will never improve beyond that of Kansas City. It's a handicap system, and like any handicap system it protects the weak by holding back the strong - and so we'll never be able to see our full potential as a club. Mickey Mouse, dude. Mickey Mouse!

Super
07-12-2009, 01:28 PM
Just one more point.

MLS is a league that requires patience to follow. It is what it is.
If you can't accept MLS for what it is (a young league that is looking for financial stability in an unstable market) and that you won't get best quality of football, stick with European leagues.

MLS won't reach anything close to 2nd tier European leagues (Portugal, Holland, Belgium) for another 10 years by my estimate

Patience? But it's boring as hell. How many of the 20k who follow TFC at home actually watch other games played in the league? Not many. There isn't any fun teams to watch. No big clubs. No small clubs. It's all the same. Like a row of people wearing the same clothes, same height, same weight. No advantages or disadvantages. Like a boxing match that goes on forever because they're of equal strength.

So yeah, I'll watch and follow TFC because it's the best I can get, but outside of that I only watch European football. And I'll continue to do so until the system changes and we'll actually see an end to the salary cap (and maybe replaced with a system that allows teams to use profits - to ensure that the league won't fold). Or a luxury tax if you spend over the salary cap. ANYTHING! Anything to end the monotony of this league.

Also, another beef I have with this league is that you're actually rewarded for finishing last. WTF is that? Mickey Mouse. I know it's done in every other sports league in North America, but it's just hard for me as a European to accept and respect. You lose, you get nothing. You win, you get it all. That I understand.

Yohan
07-12-2009, 01:34 PM
Then they fold and go the route of Leeds. Others will take over. Either way, when Man Utd comes to town you're sure to have a sell out crowd.
I frankly do not care to see TFC as some sort of travelling circus of MLS.
LA Galaxy is that, and they have become a bit of joke.

We have no such game in the MLS - and never will as long as our system is in place. There is no team that is more interesting than any other. And there is no easy game. It's random. What's fun about that? Flip a coin football.
I like it that there is no easy game. It stops teams from becoming complacent.

And it's not random. It just means teams have to play their best every game in order to beat every team in MLS. It just means teams that play half assed will mostly lose. And they deserve to lose.

Sorry, but we'll just agree to disagree on this one. I'm tired of watching empty stadiums in cities in the MLS who couldn't care less about football fielding as good a team as ours - when we're a city that actually do care about the sport.
Sucks for you to live in a continent where football isn't the number one sport. You do know that the sport is growing, right?
Patience is required

We put all of our hard earned money into the team, and yet the product will never improve beyond that of Kansas City. It's a handicap system, and like any handicap system it protects the weak by holding back the strong - and so we'll never be able to see our full potential as a club. Mickey Mouse, dude. Mickey Mouse!
Actually, Kansas City is a decent team by MLS standards.

What the current system allows teams to do is to STOP the entire league from folding.

I have no interest in winning the MLS Cup every year. It'd make the value of winning the cup worth so much more less.

Beach_Red
07-12-2009, 01:34 PM
Then they fold and go the route of Leeds. Others will take over. Either way, when Man Utd comes to town you're sure to have a sell out crowd. We have no such game in the MLS - and never will as long as our system is in place. There is no team that is more interesting than any other. And there is no easy game. It's random. What's fun about that? Flip a coin football. Sorry, but we'll just agree to disagree on this one. I'm tired of watching empty stadiums in cities in the MLS who couldn't care less about football fielding as good a team as ours - when we're a city that actually do care about the sport. We put all of our hard earned money into the team, and yet the product will never improve beyond that of Kansas City. It's a handicap system, and like any handicap system it protects the weak by holding back the strong - and so we'll never be able to see our full potential as a club. Mickey Mouse, dude. Mickey Mouse!


The salary cap, or revenue-sharing, doesn't result in a coin-toss league after maturity. MLS is just young. It's not the weak holding back the strong at all - at least in a league like the NFL with 32 strong teams. It doesn't matter if it's the Steelers coming to town or the Bucaneers, it'll sell out. And the TV ratings will be strong.

There are already more interesting teams emerging. Already Seattle is more interesting than half the league. Houston is a more interesting team.

Over time some teams will come to dominate.

I think it's Mickey Mouse to have a league where only SOME of the teams coming in will sell out. Why don't they all sell out?

Yohan
07-12-2009, 01:37 PM
Patience? But it's boring as hell. How many of the 20k who follow TFC at home actually watch other games played in the league? Not many. There isn't any fun teams to watch. No big clubs. No small clubs. It's all the same. Like a row of people wearing the same clothes, same height, same weight. No advantages or disadvantages. Like a boxing match that goes on forever because they're of equal strength.
If you actually took time to follow the league, you missed out on a lot of decent games to watch. And you'd understand which teams are doing good and bad. What their advantages and disadvantages are


So yeah, I'll watch and follow TFC because it's the best I can get, but outside of that I only watch European football. And I'll continue to do so until the system changes and we'll actually see an end to the salary cap (and maybe replaced with a system that allows teams to use profits - to ensure that the league won't fold). Or a luxury tax if you spend over the salary cap. ANYTHING! Anything to end the monotony of this league.
Should have never bothered to follow MLS in the first place, because this is about good as it'll get for a while. Esp in current economic climate.
You'll be in for years of frustration


Also, another beef I have with this league is that you're actually rewarded for finishing last. WTF is that? Mickey Mouse. I know it's done in every other sports league in North America, but it's just hard for me as a European to accept and respect. You lose, you get nothing. You win, you get it all. That I understand.
welcome to North America

Jack
07-12-2009, 01:38 PM
I don't agree that parity breeds mediocrity.

What they're basically doing is saying to each team:

Here are your parameters for building a team, do whatever you can to build a winner within that framework.

So it really depends more on the ability of the team builders, management and the players within the team to be able to win within the framework.

The playing field is levelled in that sense, though of course, teams with more resources can certainly do more in terms of infrastructure, training, staff and facilities in order to get an edge.

I don't see what the aversion is to everyone having to deal with the same framework as opposed to having a few "haves" and a whole host of "have-nots".

Super
07-12-2009, 01:40 PM
I think it's Mickey Mouse to have a league where only SOME of the teams coming in will sell out. Why don't they all sell out?

Because you want to see some teams more than others. That's not a question of Mickey Mouse, that's a question of what teams have fame and which ones carry prestige to beat. That's way more fun.

Anyway, the MLS is not growing. Last time I checked attendances are down. And the world is not watching. They're laughing. And that's a fact!

flatpicker
07-12-2009, 01:41 PM
I see both pros and cons with MLS system.

I understand that it might hurt attendance when only a few teams have a truly decent chance at winning the championship.

But, I don't know about the rest of you, when I watch Prem football on tv, I find it exciting to cheer for the underdog team.
Even though it almost a guarantee the little guy isn't gonna beat ManU, it's fun to hold some hope that the improbable might happen.

I would like to see the cap go up, and I like the idea of a luxury tax.
If wealthy team want to spend more money, they should be able to.
And when they do, it means more money into the pockets of weaker clubs, and thus more money across the league to spend on better talent.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Yohan
07-12-2009, 01:43 PM
I don't agree that parity breeds mediocrity.

What they're basically doing is saying to each team:

Here are your parameters for building a team, do whatever you can to build a winner within that framework.

So it really depends more on the ability of the team builders, management and the players within the team to be able to win within the framework.

The playing field is levelled in that sense, though of course, teams with more resources can certainly do more in terms of infrastructure, training, staff and facilities in order to get an edge.

I don't see what the aversion is to everyone having to deal with the same framework as opposed to having a few "haves" and a whole host of "have-nots".
exactly

I find it more challenging to build a winning team this way, and makes winning therefore better and more sweet than throwing tons of money.

If you're happy with throwing money into teams in order to try to win (and destroying the integrity of the game in the process), well, what else can I say?

Throwing money in is only a short term fun. Building a competent team lasting long time is a long term investment

Yohan
07-12-2009, 01:46 PM
Because you want to see some teams more than others. That's not a question of Mickey Mouse, that's a question of what teams have fame and which ones carry prestige to beat. That's way more fun.
If you actually support a team, shouldn't you be showing up regardless of which opponent you're playing anyways?


Anyway, the MLS is not growing. Last time I checked attendances are down. Economy sucks, eh?

And the world is not watching. They're laughing. And that's a fact!
the world has been laughing at MLS ever since 1996. And the league is still here, and growing and getting better every year despite that.

I frankly don't give a rat's ass if Euro snobs wants to poke fun at MLS

Super
07-12-2009, 01:50 PM
I would like to see the cap go up, and I like the idea of a luxury tax. If wealthy team want to spend more money, they should be able to. And when they do, it means more money into the pockets of weaker clubs, and thus more money across the league to spend on better talent.


I agree fully. And really, why should we be held back out of fear that Kansas City might fold because their average of $6k tickets will go down if they don't have as big a chance of winning? Screw that. Find a way to fill the stadium then. They're not my concern. Teams won't fold, they'll just suck. The league can keep them in business by us tossing them a few bucks. Meanwhile we're kicking ass in the Champions League. WE created this team with our dollars and deserve to see a return on the investment.

Most telling was when we sent 2500 supporters to Columbus and lost 2-0 to a team that couldn't even pass the 10k mark in ticket sales. It's embarrassing. Imagine Man Utd. with as great a chance of winning the league as Scunthorpe Utd.

Super
07-12-2009, 01:52 PM
the world has been laughing at MLS ever since 1996. And the league is still here, and growing and getting better every year despite that.

I frankly don't give a rat's ass if Euro snobs wants to poke fun at MLS

They laugh at the salary cap. And why? Because it's a joke. There are small leagues all over the world, even worse than ours, who enjoy greater respect. Why? Coz it's not built on franchises and parity - which to me is anti-sport anyway. Like tying the hand of the better boxer behind his back.

Yohan
07-12-2009, 01:58 PM
They laugh at the salary cap. And why? Because it's a joke. There are small leagues all over the world, even worse than ours, who enjoy greater respect. Why? Coz it's not built on franchises and parity - which to me is anti-sport anyway. Like tying the hand of the better boxer behind his back.
throwing money everywhere is mark of a quality team? how many people truly respect Real Madrid, esp after it choose to buy a new team every year?

clearly you dont understand that financial prudence should take precedence over short term 'fun'

Super
07-12-2009, 02:03 PM
throwing money everywhere is mark of a quality team? how many people truly respect Real Madrid, esp after it choose to buy a new team every year?

clearly you dont understand that financial prudence should take precedence over short term 'fun'

Look, I'm not oblivious to the fact that this game must be protected in North America, because unlike the rest of the world the sport is just not really appreciated very well in this market. However, we can easily increase spending AND do so responsibility. You have the salary cap, and anything you spend beyond that has to come from profits made - so you prove to the league that you're not spending money you don't have. Simple as that. Put a luxury tax in place as well so poorer clubs will get a few bucks from the richer clubs - to give them a chance to better their teams as well.

End result: Mickey Mouse is dead. And we'll see more quality players come to this league = better product ... which in the end will grow the game a lot faster than the 0-0 and 1-1 draws this league continues to produce.

Beach_Red
07-12-2009, 02:24 PM
They laugh at the salary cap. And why? Because it's a joke. There are small leagues all over the world, even worse than ours, who enjoy greater respect. Why? Coz it's not built on franchises and parity - which to me is anti-sport anyway. Like tying the hand of the better boxer behind his back.


No, it's just the reality of television. The leagues you talk about were all established before TV and the huge competition for customers. Those leagues were the only game in town. It's not like that in America, and it's changing in the rest of the world, too.

(also, if you haven't noticed yet, Americans do not care who's laughing at them. That may come back to bite the in the ass, we'll see).

What percentage of ManU's revenue is form ticket sales and what percentage is generated through TV (either direct TV rights or merchandise sales that are the result of people seeing them on TV around the world)?

The advantage the NFL had was that TV as already established as the way most people would see the games when the league was still young (in fact, when the NFL and AFL merged it was to turn it into a TV league). So the NFL has a business model based mostly on TV revenue. The teams agreed from the very beginning that TV revenue was generated by the LEAGUE and not by individual teams, so it was shared between all the teams.

It hasn't bred medicority and dynasties have emerged. And there's no debt. When the big European teams collapse under their debt and the Russian billionaires and other gangsters are no longer interested in sports teams as a way to launder their money then the teams surviving will likely look at a revenue-sharing model like the NFL.

profit89
07-12-2009, 02:32 PM
Parity = Mediocrity

I hate parity with a passion. It makes everything dull and in-consequential. Victories and defeats are devoid of any significant meaning because both results are equally plausible.

I hate parity in the NHL, I hate it in MLS, I hate it in the NFL, and I especially hate it in the CFL.

Competition, at it's heart, isnt meant to be everybody sharing championships and victories equally amongst participants.

There should be no regard paid to the weak or disadvantaged. Sports should be a ruthless meritocracy.

'Parity' is the worst buzz-word sports marketers have ever come up with. It defeats the purpose of competition itself and I am consistently shocked that so many people subscribe to it.

Its just a nice way of saying 'nobody is really any good'.

I somewhat agree with this. To much parity is just as bad, if not worse, than to much disparity.

There is a happy medium somewhere. Perhaps a soft cap with luxury tax ala the NBA is better. Some teams are allowed to expand without being held back by the weakest team, but not such much that the weakest team doesn't stand a chance.

Perhaps the answer lies in Richard Snowden's model of a two-tiered cap system... http://soccer365.com/us_news/story_81208190400.php

It's the best model I have seen proposed imo.

CretanBull
07-12-2009, 02:33 PM
I don't agree that parity breeds mediocrity.

What they're basically doing is saying to each team:

Here are your parameters for building a team, do whatever you can to build a winner within that framework.

So it really depends more on the ability of the team builders, management and the players within the team to be able to win within the framework.

The playing field is levelled in that sense, though of course, teams with more resources can certainly do more in terms of infrastructure, training, staff and facilities in order to get an edge.

I don't see what the aversion is to everyone having to deal with the same framework as opposed to having a few "haves" and a whole host of "have-nots".

The MLS is no where near ready to open things up entirely and try to compete with the top leagues for talent...that will send us down the NASL route to bankrupcy. We can't abandon the model, but in the name of growth and taking the next step it's time to broaden the paramaters.

Beach_Red
07-12-2009, 02:39 PM
The MLS is no where near ready to open things up entirely and try to compete with the top leagues for talent...that will send us down the NASL route to bankrupcy. We can't abandon the model, but in the name of growth and taking the next step it's time to broaden the paramaters.


Why is it time now?

Isn't expansion the next step to broaden the parametres and that's not finished yet.

Yohan
07-12-2009, 02:56 PM
Why is it time now?

Isn't expansion the next step to broaden the parametres and that's not finished yet.
if indications are true, Portland and Philly looks to be good markets. I dunno about Van but hopefully they'll get sorted out.

I just can't see Mtl not getting in either.

So 4 decent/good markets (at least way better than attendance at Denver and Columbus) and the league will grow as a result.

It just seems to me that a lot of people are frustrated at incremental steps that the league is taking to ensure stable growth, and would rather see a quick fix solution now

Super
07-12-2009, 03:01 PM
It just seems to me that a lot of people are frustrated at incremental steps that the league is taking to ensure stable growth, and would rather see a quick fix solution now

I for one am more frustrated that we have to trade away players to make room to take on new players - when we have more than enough money to build our squad well beyond what we have right now. That's my only beef. If the money is there, why not spend it on improving the product? Surely a better product on the field would benefit the sport and bring more people to the sport.

CretanBull
07-12-2009, 03:03 PM
Why is it time now?

Isn't expansion the next step to broaden the parametres and that's not finished yet.

Expanding the league doesn't do anything to change the paramaters at all, it's just allows for more teams to work within the existing parameters.

Having said that, I think that expansion plays a role in determining why the timing is right for the league to take the next step. As successful teams like Toronto and Seatle come into the league, it should also be seen as an opportunity to re-evaluate the existing teams - which I think is the first step towards 'broadening the parameters'. The league's main goal for the next 2-3 years should be to have every team in the league in a SSS playing on natural grass in markets that can sell 15,000 tickets per game.

Yohan
07-12-2009, 03:15 PM
The league's main goal for the next 2-3 years should be to have every team in the league in a SSS playing on natural grass in markets that can sell 15,000 tickets per game.
I think the league is well on the way for SSS in most cities. Seattle being an exception because it doesn't need one it seems and from what I've seen Qwest field looks pretty soccer friendly. Minus the turf.

I think 12 to 13k is more reasonable number to go for, without being inflated by Seattle's attendance numbers. Isn't most 2nd tier leagues avg 12000 ish anyways?

Yohan
07-12-2009, 03:16 PM
I for one am more frustrated that we have to trade away players to make room to take on new players - when we have more than enough money to build our squad well beyond what we have right now. That's my only beef. If the money is there, why not spend it on improving the product? Surely a better product on the field would benefit the sport and bring more people to the sport.
yeah we get it. you don't like parity

mr k
07-12-2009, 03:22 PM
Like some here, I hate parity - it isn't the real world but an unnatural state of condition.

You're rewarding failure at every turn - worst teams usually get easier schedules, best draft picks, revenue sharing and in some North American leagues, outright subsidies.

NFL is actually the only place where heavy handed socialism actually works. North American sports fans seem to have an aversion to failure or actually experiencing the true of agony of defeat such as relegation. So, we end up with a lot of manufactured excitement leading to lower highs and higher lows rather than organic foreplay leading to a true climax.

Yohan
07-12-2009, 03:34 PM
Past MLS Cup winners and runner ups (13yrs of league existence)

Winners
DC United x4
San Jose x2
Houston x2 (really should be x4 because old Earthquakes moved to Houston to become Dynamo)
LA Galaxy x2
Chicago x1
Kansas City x1
Columbus Crew x1

Runner Ups
New England x4
LA Galaxy x3
Chicago x2
Colorado x1
DC United x1
New York x1
Kansas City x1

Beach_Red
07-12-2009, 03:39 PM
Like some here, I hate parity - it isn't the real world but an unnatural state of condition.




But this isn't the real world, it's sports.

What the NFL decided was to put the strength of the league ahead of any individual team. And it worked. There have been three or four other leagues start up and the NFL defeated them all. All 32 NFL teams are profitable and carry no debt. And some teams won far more often than others.

I don't understand how you guys keep saying that this structure somehow lessens competition. It's not like the San Diego Chargers or Detroit Lions or Cincinatti Bengals are going to win the Super Bowl next year. But you also can't tell me which four teams will finish with the most wins (okay, we can all agree Detroit will have the fewest wins).

BayernTFC
07-12-2009, 03:42 PM
^ Yes, it seems MLS is really modelling itself after the NFL and leaving all development up to the NCAA.
This is an incredibly dumb move imho. The NFL has no competition for the talent that comes out of the NCAA. Players only consider other options when there isn't any interest from teams in the NFL. TFC drafted Mike Grella when all others took a pass on him because Grella was headed for Europe. Hoping that players will flop overseas and return to your squad is an unfortunate way to have to try and build a team. Players coming from the NCAA have many other options besides the MLS and the best talent is likely to go elsewhere if there is interest. MLS should be deversifying the development pool rather than putting all their eggs in one basket.


^^ Losing players to AC Milan happens to most leagues in the world, but we shouldn't be losing our talent to Denmark.
The reason I included Beckham in my example was to highlight how easy it is for MLS to lose players, that have been convinced to come to North America, when they perform well.


Problem with parity is that MLS clubs in international competitions are severely handicapped. As CONCACAF CL becomes bigger it wll be embarrassing to have all MLS clubs eliminated in the first couple rounds
This is an excellent point. Limiting developmental options for teams is also a form of enforcing parity. The successful teams that find themselves playing extra games through these competitions will require the availability of additional players to compete properly in all competitions and prevent player wear and tear, injuries and fatigue. The fact that MLS clubs are entering into additional competitions, and facing ever increasingly heavy schedules, makes the reduction of rosters and removal of the reserve league even more puzzling.

CretanBull
07-12-2009, 03:46 PM
I think the league is well on the way for SSS in most cities. Seattle being an exception because it doesn't need one it seems and from what I've seen Qwest field looks pretty soccer friendly. Minus the turf.

I think 12 to 13k is more reasonable number to go for, without being inflated by Seattle's attendance numbers. Isn't most 2nd tier leagues avg 12000 ish anyways?


12k-13k might be average for a 2nd tier league, but that shouldn't be the MLS's goal. I realize that we're talking about Canada and America and not England, but clubs like Preston, Bolton, Blackpool, Blackburn, Man U, Man City, Burnley (and others) are all within a very short drive of each other (maybe 1/2 hour, 45 mins?) and they're drawing from cities with a small fraction of the population of most MLS cities.

In the MLS, most teams are located within short driving distance of atleast 1 million people...those teams should be able to sell 15,000 tickets per game. If they can't, the league should look for cities where it can happen.

Shakes McQueen
07-12-2009, 04:01 PM
Also, another beef I have with this league is that you're actually rewarded for finishing last. WTF is that? Mickey Mouse. I know it's done in every other sports league in North America, but it's just hard for me as a European to accept and respect. You lose, you get nothing. You win, you get it all. That I understand.

It's not so much about "rewarding" losing, as it is an attempt by the league to maintain competitive parity. You'll never see a team intentionally tank their season to get the "reward" of a high draft pick.

As much as things like "drafts" and "salary caps" are pretty foreign to sports like football in the rest of the world, I think they are fantastic ideas, and are also what's keeping North American sports wages within the realm of sanity, as football transfer fees and wages completely go off the deep end, and more and more top-flight clubs exist on a financial house of cards consisting of over-leveraged debt.

- Scott

Yohan
07-12-2009, 04:02 PM
12k-13k might be average for a 2nd tier league, but that shouldn't be the MLS's goal. I realize that we're talking about Canada and America and not England, but clubs like Preston, Bolton, Blackpool, Blackburn, Man U, Man City, Burnley (and others) are all within a very short drive of each other (maybe 1/2 hour, 45 mins?) and they're drawing from cities with a small fraction of the population of most MLS cities.

In the MLS, most teams are located within short driving distance of atleast 1 million people...those teams should be able to sell 15,000 tickets per game. If they can't, the league should look for cities where it can happen.
like you said, this is Canada and US, where each major cities already has 2 or 3 other major league teams competing for fan's money
add in very little interest overall, I think 12-13k is a reasonable number to go for, regardless of population base

soccer isn't going to be popular in NA for a long time, and we should keep our expectation low, based on realistic assessment of the situation

I however, do see increased popularity in soccer in 10 yrs or so, when all the kids that play the game now continue to maintain interest and willing to spend money to see MLS games

Shakes McQueen
07-12-2009, 04:11 PM
12k-13k might be average for a 2nd tier league, but that shouldn't be the MLS's goal. I realize that we're talking about Canada and America and not England, but clubs like Preston, Bolton, Blackpool, Blackburn, Man U, Man City, Burnley (and others) are all within a very short drive of each other (maybe 1/2 hour, 45 mins?) and they're drawing from cities with a small fraction of the population of most MLS cities.

In the MLS, most teams are located within short driving distance of atleast 1 million people...those teams should be able to sell 15,000 tickets per game. If they can't, the league should look for cities where it can happen.

Unfortunately, for North American leagues, it isn't as easy as just putting teams where they will sell tickets.

If MLS ever wants to get a lucrative television rights deal down the road, they need to have a national presence. And that means having teams in cities like Dallas, San Jose, and even places akin to Columbus (if not Columbus itself). It's the only way the national networks will ever consider paying for TV rights in the long run.

You see the NHL struggling with this same problem. Hockey is largely a regional sport in the United States, but the NHL is doing everything it can to keep teams like the Coyotes in Phoenix, despite the fact that they are bleeding money.

In this regard, I think MLS is wise to not just close up shop in cities where ticket sales are weak. Dallas and Houston are great examples - they have tons of potential as markets, because Texas has a huge Hispanic population.

It's infuriating as Toronto FC fans. because we see these weak ass markets as boat anchors holding the league (and our team) back, but the success of at least MOST of these markets will be essential to the leagues growth on a longer trajectory.

In that sense, I understand MLS' annoyingly patient approach to the growth of the league.

- Scott

BayernTFC
07-12-2009, 04:23 PM
You'll never see a team intentionally tank their season to get the "reward" of a high draft pick.
Didn't the Pittsburgh Penguins do this in order to get Mario Lemieux? Isn't this why the NBA and NHL institute a draft lottery? Teams may not start out with the direct intention to "tank a season" for a higher pick, but what's stopping them from blowing a few games if the season isn't on the line anyways?

Shakes McQueen
07-12-2009, 04:31 PM
Didn't the Pittsburgh Penguins do this in order to get Mario Lemieux? Isn't this why the NBA and NHL institute a draft lottery? Teams may not start out with the direct intention to "tank a season" for a higher pick, but what's stopping them from blowing a few games if the season isn't on the line anyways?

It just doesn't happen. Brian Burke explained it best when he joined the Leafs - you can't tell the players in the locker room to just not play their hearts out. Sure, you can tool with the lineup a bit, and field some weaker players, but whoever is on that bench is going to give everything they have to succeed. Athletes are competitors - they don't care about the front office's long term goals. They want to win every night, and a coach would completely lose the room if he seriously tried to tell his team to tank a game.

And both the NBA and NHL investigate allegations of intentionally losing, so you couldn't get away with it if you wanted to.

I'm not familiar enough with the Lemieux situation, so I can't comment.

- Scott

Beach_Red
07-12-2009, 04:41 PM
Didn't the Pittsburgh Penguins do this in order to get Mario Lemieux? Isn't this why the NBA and NHL institute a draft lottery? Teams may not start out with the direct intention to "tank a season" for a higher pick, but what's stopping them from blowing a few games if the season isn't on the line anyways?


Like you said, what's stopping them is the lottery. It was great for Pittsburgh to get Lemieux (though he didn't want to go to Pittsburgh - would it really have been better for the NHL if he'd gone to Montreal as he wanted to?) but who were picks 2-5?

Super
07-12-2009, 04:42 PM
yeah we get it. you don't like parity

And we get it, you do. So I guess we can close the thread?

Super
07-12-2009, 04:46 PM
It's not so much about "rewarding" losing, as it is an attempt by the league to maintain competitive parity. You'll never see a team intentionally tank their season to get the "reward" of a high draft pick.

As much as things like "drafts" and "salary caps" are pretty foreign to sports like football in the rest of the world, I think they are fantastic ideas, and are also what's keeping North American sports wages within the realm of sanity, as football transfer fees and wages completely go off the deep end, and more and more top-flight clubs exist on a financial house of cards consisting of over-leveraged debt.

- Scott

I understand the reasoning behind the draft and salary caps in North America, but fact still remains that it is right now keeping the MLS from growing. Garber is so busy expanding, that he seems to completely forget the fact that with each new team you simple water down the product. It doesn't work. Obviously it doesn't work to simply let clubs spend as much as they want recklessly either, but surely there is a middle ground there somewhere where you can allow profitable clubs to spend a little of that extra cash they've earned from their fans. It would bring about a better product. How can anyone be against that?

BayernTFC
07-12-2009, 04:48 PM
I don't agree that parity breeds mediocrity.

What they're basically doing is saying to each team:

Here are your parameters for building a team, do whatever you can to build a winner within that framework.

So it really depends more on the ability of the team builders, management and the players within the team to be able to win within the framework.

The playing field is levelled in that sense, though of course, teams with more resources can certainly do more in terms of infrastructure, training, staff and facilities in order to get an edge.

I don't see what the aversion is to everyone having to deal with the same framework as opposed to having a few "haves" and a whole host of "have-nots".
That assumes that the "framework" hasn't been undergoing frequent drastic changes. Here is a quote by Yohan from the Paper thin MLS roster thread:

i'd just settle for a consistent, firm set of rules, that doesn't change every year, leaving GMs scrambling to meet the new rules
http://www.redpatchboys.ca/forums/showthread.php?t=15344

It's one thing to implement rules that allow all teams to compete credibly against each other, and it's another thing to continually adjust the rules in order to prevent the possibility that some teams might improve over their competitors in the long run.

Yohan
07-12-2009, 04:52 PM
I understand the reasoning behind the draft and salary caps in North America, but fact still remains that it is right now keeping the MLS from growing. Garber is so busy expanding, that he seems to completely forget the fact that with each new team you simple water down the product. It doesn't work. Obviously it doesn't work to simply let clubs spend as much as they want recklessly either, but surely there is a middle ground there somewhere where you can allow profitable clubs to spend a little of that extra cash they've earned from their fans. It would bring about a better product. How can anyone be against that?
how has Seattle and Toronto 'watered down' the quality of of play in MLS? you'd think it has opposite effect

profit89
07-12-2009, 04:58 PM
..surely there is a middle ground there somewhere where you can allow profitable clubs to spend a little of that extra cash they've earned from their fans. It would bring about a better product.

Agree 100%

And competitive balance wouldn't be lost to much.

And so much of soccer is David v Goliath. Toppling David from the throne is what converts people to fans. When every team is exactly the same, that special and crucial dynamic is lost.

Super
07-12-2009, 04:58 PM
how has Seattle and Toronto 'watered down' the quality of of play in MLS? you'd think it has opposite effect

You water down the pool of players available. It stands to reason that the more teams you have the less talent will be available to each team. You'll have to dip into a less talented pool to make up full squads.

Anyhow, we can go back and forward on this issue, and I think at the end of the day you'll always have two camps: those who support parity, and those who do not. But having thought a bit more, I think the greatest argument against parity is that it decreases the odds of football-friendly cities winning the championship. It's better for the sport to have Toronto winning the title (imagine the press here, the players celebrated in a huge party downtown or whatever) vs. Columbus where, quite frankly, nobody cares. That just echoes the thoughts of most people in North America that saaawkkerrr is a sport that nobody cares about.

Shakes McQueen
07-12-2009, 05:00 PM
That assumes that the "framework" hasn't been undergoing frequent drastic changes. Here is a quote by Yohan from the Paper thin MLS roster thread:

http://www.redpatchboys.ca/forums/showthread.php?t=15344

It's one thing to implement rules that allow all teams to compete credibly against each other, and it's another thing to continually adjust the rules in order to prevent the possibility that some teams might improve over their competitors in the long run.

Jack's post as a general statement about salary capped leagues still holds true. The problem with MLS is that it's still a relatively young league, and they are still trying to figure out what works for their business model, and what doesn't - hence, you have drastic changes like the elimination of reserve teams.

I suspect things will settle down a lot after the new CBA is negotiated, because that agreement will likely lay the framework for what Garber wants this league to look like going forward.

- Scott

profit89
07-12-2009, 05:02 PM
MLS needs "big" teams to hate. Not 16 teams all the same.

There is a way to produce those "big" teams and yet maintain competitive balance. Soccer is not a closed league like NFL. Keep in mind we're competing with hundreds of other like leagues around the globe for talent.

BayernTFC
07-12-2009, 05:04 PM
It just doesn't happen. Brian Burke explained it best when he joined the Leafs - you can't tell the players in the locker room to just not play their hearts out. Sure, you can tool with the lineup a bit, and field some weaker players, but whoever is on that bench is going to give everything they have to succeed. Athletes are competitors - they don't care about the front office's long term goals. They want to win every night, and a coach would completely lose the room if he seriously tried to tell his team to tank a game.

And both the NBA and NHL investigate allegations of intentionally losing, so you couldn't get away with it if you wanted to.

I'm not familiar enough with the Lemieux situation, so I can't comment.

- Scott
Players can throw games. Where there's a will, there's a way. It has happened before and I'm sure that it will happen again. You don't need the whole team to throw a game. NCAA football is riddled with individual players who were unwilling to throw the outcome of the game because it would potentially affect their draft position, but they would underperform to effect the spread. How's that for integrity? There are plenty of athletes in a wide range of sports who throw games for organized crime. Even referees get in on the action. Coaches are expendable and most (especially on a losing team competing for last place and top selection in the draft) are a dime a dozen. Now, I won't argue that it's easy to do in the NHL and NBA anymore. That's why I mentioned the draft lottery. ;)


Like you said, what's stopping them is the lottery.
Yep. I used that example to highlight on obvious deficiency in the rules of two leagues that was later corrected. Does the MLS institute a draft lottery?

Shakes McQueen
07-12-2009, 05:16 PM
You water down the pool of players available. It stands to reason that the more teams you have the less talent will be available to each team. You'll have to dip into a less talented pool to make up full squads.

Anyhow, we can go back and forward on this issue, and I think at the end of the day you'll always have two camps: those who support parity, and those who do not. But having thought a bit more, I think the greatest argument against parity is that it decreases the odds of football-friendly cities winning the championship. It's better for the sport to have Toronto winning the title (imagine the press here, the players celebrated in a huge party downtown or whatever) vs. Columbus where, quite frankly, nobody cares. That just echoes the thoughts of most people in North America that saaawkkerrr is a sport that nobody cares about.

But see, this is exactly my problem. The rules shouldn't be written to tip the odds of who wins in the favour of certain cities, because it provides the best photo-op afterward.

And while Toronto winning the MLS Cup would provide for a great newspaper story here in Toronto, it wouldn't register a blip in getting more fans interested in the league in Dallas, Houston, San Jose, Kansas City, or anywhere else outside of Toronto.

All it would ensure, is that the already strong fanbases in places like Seattle and Toronto stay strong, while smaller fledgling markets get utterly decimated, as their fans quickly realize that they aren't realistically in the running for anything every season.

This kind of stuff works fine for soccer in Europe, where people have borderline religious relationships with their clubs, handed down through generations, and intense rivalries exist between different regions and towns. None of that exists in North American soccer yet, and certainly not in MLS, a league that is scarcely 15 years old.

Christ, our "intense" history of inter-league rivalry, consists of a couple of fist fights, some amusing derogatory banners, and one guy getting tasered in Columbus, after a game. :D

- Scott

BayernTFC
07-12-2009, 05:17 PM
MLS needs "big" teams to hate. Not 16 teams all the same.

There is a way to produce those "big" teams and yet maintain competitive balance. Soccer is not a closed league like NFL. Keep in mind we're competing with hundreds of other like leagues around the globe for talent.
Not to mention that MLS competes with a wide range of sports and other forms of entertainment for viewers. I don't think that the NFL is an apt comparison for MLS. There is a built in audience that the NFL enjoys due to the way North American football is incorporated into U.S. society. European football/Soccer does not enjoy that type of hold on the psyche of most North Americans. Bear in mind, the NFL didn't start out building their league in the same manner that they conduct business nowadays.

Shakes McQueen
07-12-2009, 05:21 PM
Players can throw games. Where there's a will, there's a way. It has happened before and I'm sure that it will happen again. You don't need the whole team to throw a game. NCAA football is riddled with individual players who were unwilling to throw the outcome of the game because it would potentially affect their draft position, but they would underperform to effect the spread. How's that for integrity? There are plenty of athletes in a wide range of sports who throw games for organized crime. Even referees get in on the action. Coaches are expendable and most (especially on a losing team competing for last place and top selection in the draft) are a dime a dozen. Now, I won't argue that it's easy to do in the NHL and NBA anymore. That's why I mentioned the draft lottery. ;)

Ironically, the only sport with an illustrious history of match-fixing, is soccer. And that had everything to do with gambling, and nothing to do with non-existent draft picks.

You're saying it can and does happen, but you aren't offering specific examples of where it has happened in salary-capped leagues with drafts. That is what we are discussing here.

- Scott

Super
07-12-2009, 05:23 PM
But see, this is exactly my problem. The rules shouldn't be written to tip the odds of who wins in the favour of certain cities, because it provides the best photo-op afterward.

And while Toronto winning the MLS Cup would provide for a great newspaper story here in Toronto, it wouldn't register a blip in getting more fans interested in the league in Dallas, Houston, San Jose, Kansas City, or anywhere else outside of Toronto.

All it would ensure, is that the already strong fanbases in places like Seattle and Toronto stay strong, while smaller fledgling markets get utterly decimated, as their fans quickly realize that they aren't realistically in the running for anything every season.

This kind of stuff works fine for soccer in Europe, where people have borderline religious relationships with their clubs, handed down through generations, and intense rivalries exist between different regions and towns. None of that exists in North American soccer yet, and certainly not in MLS, a league that is scarcely 15 years old.

Christ, our "intense" history of inter-league rivalry, consists of a couple of fist fights, some amusing derogatory banners, and one guy getting tasered in Columbus, after a game. :D

- Scott

Good points, but I still say it hurts the league when Columbus wins the cup. It hurts the league because markets that have a strong interest in the game, and who pump money into the league - and basically keep it alive - grow tired and frustrated with the whole MLS model and may eventually leave. Then you're stuck with Columbus and other non-football cities having to foot the bill and, well, then you might as well fold. It's the big clubs in England that bring in the mega-talent that has made it the most watched league in the world.

It's better for this league, financially and otherwise, to have Seattle, Toronto, DC, Houston and maybe LA win the league more often than Kansas, Columbus and Dallas. All I'm asking is that the money we as supporters pump into our clubs should be spent on the field - or at least some of it. Doesn't guarantee a win, but you'll create some big clubs that will also be able to better compete outside of the mls in the Champions League - and by doing that maybe draw more interest in our league not only by football fans but also by players.

Yohan
07-12-2009, 05:24 PM
You water down the pool of players available. It stands to reason that the more teams you have the less talent will be available to each team. You'll have to dip into a less talented pool to make up full squads.

except that talent pool is so big and untapped (if you know where to look), that adding one or two team (which is what, 24 players per team) is not going to drastically reduce the quality of the league. not when you have the entire world to search for talents

your argument would have weight if MLS is forced to look only inside US for players

Shakes McQueen
07-12-2009, 05:24 PM
Not to mention that MLS competes with a wide range of sports and other forms of entertainment for viewers. I don't think that the NFL is an apt comparison for MLS. There is a built in audience that the NFL enjoys due to the way North American football is incorporated into U.S. society. European football/Soccer does not enjoy that type of hold on the psyche of most North Americans. Bear in mind, the NFL didn't start out building their league in the same manner that they conduct business nowadays.

But likewise, leagues like the EPL survive on how ingrained into the "psyche" of England their clubs are, and the "built in" audience that goes along with it. It's why the league is such a rousing success, despite the fact that only four teams are realistically competing for the league title every season.

- Scott

BayernTFC
07-12-2009, 05:33 PM
Ironically, the only sport with an illustrious history of match-fixing, is soccer. And that had everything to do with gambling, and nothing to do with non-existent draft picks.

You're saying it can and does happen, but you aren't offering specific examples of where it has happened in salary-capped leagues with drafts. That is what we are discussing here.

- Scott
Yes, soccer has definitely aired it's dirty laundry. Throwing games isn't restricted to soccer, but it does usually involve betting in some way. Ever heard of Shoeless Joe Jackson and the Black Sox Scandal. North American sports have a long tradition of match fixing. Do you have any idea how many bets are placed on Football in North America? Betting is one of the things that makes Football so popular in NA. I'll do some searching on the web and pull up some specifics if you insist.

Super
07-12-2009, 05:36 PM
Well, an interesting comparison, although small in size, would be the Canada Cup. No parity there. We have more money to spend on players, and yet Vancouver and Montreal play their hearts out to beat us for the big prize. Out of 10 cups we'd probably take the majority, yes, but the games are interesting nonetheless. And no doubt MTL and VAN love it when we come to town.

Yohan
07-12-2009, 05:38 PM
Well, an interesting comparison, although small in size, would be the Canada Cup. No parity there. We have more money to spend on players, and yet Vancouver and Montreal play their hearts out to beat us for the big prize. Out of 10 cups we'd probably take the majority, yes, but the games are interesting nonetheless. And no doubt MTL and VAN love it when we come to town.
just how much of that is 'rivalry', rather than 'big team vs small team'?

BayernTFC
07-12-2009, 05:40 PM
But likewise, leagues like the EPL survive on how ingrained into the "psyche" of England their clubs are, and the "built in" audience that goes along with it. It's why the league is such a rousing success, despite the fact that only four teams are realistically competing for the league title every season.

- Scott
I agree that this is exactly how leagues such as the EPL in europe work. I am not trying to argue that MLS should emulate European football leagues, just as I hope that they won't try to copy the success of the NFL. I want to see the MLS both survive and improve overall quality. I think that this can be an achievable goal while allowing some teams to be continually successful. I'd rather have the Detroit Red Wings as a model instead of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

Super
07-12-2009, 05:43 PM
just how much of that is 'rivalry', rather than 'big team vs small team'?

Rivalry would be replaced with a desire by smaller teams to beat bigger teams. Heck, it works that way everywhere else in the world. Why can't it work here?

Shakes McQueen
07-12-2009, 05:45 PM
Yes, soccer has definitely aired it's dirty laundry. Throwing games isn't restricted to soccer, but it does usually involve betting in some way. Ever heard of Shoeless Joe Jackson and the Black Sox Scandal. North American sports have a long tradition of match fixing. Do you have any idea how many bets are placed on Football in North America? Betting is one of the things that makes Football so popular in NA. I'll do some searching on the web and pull up some specifics if you insist.

I'm not looking for specifics on gambling data - I'm looking for examples of players tanking a game (or season), in a league with a salary cap, and a draft - NBA, NHL, etc.

Baseball has no salary cap, and an illustrious history of gambling issues. Pete Rose comes to mind.

Shoeless Joe did indeed involve himself in a conspiracy to fix the 1919 World Series, but he was also punished severely for it, by being banned from playing after 1920. So even if it was a valid example, it kind of proves my point - even 90 years ago, they didn't tolerate that shit.

- Scott

Shakes McQueen
07-12-2009, 05:48 PM
I agree that this is exactly how leagues such as the EPL in europe work. I am not trying to argue that MLS should emulate European football leagues, just as I hope that they won't try to copy the success of the NFL. I want to see the MLS both survive and improve overall quality. I think that this can be an achievable goal while allowing some teams to be continually successful. I'd rather have the Detroit Red Wings as a model instead of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

I agree, but ironically the Red Wings are a great model, because they operate superbly within a salary capped framework, by doing exactly what Jack suggested - hiring phenomenal scouts and coaches, and so on.

The Red Wings are a great example of how it's still possible to have a pretty consistently competitive team in a salary cap framework, by investing money in your team's infrastructure.

- Scott

Shakes McQueen
07-12-2009, 05:51 PM
Well, an interesting comparison, although small in size, would be the Canada Cup. No parity there. We have more money to spend on players, and yet Vancouver and Montreal play their hearts out to beat us for the big prize. Out of 10 cups we'd probably take the majority, yes, but the games are interesting nonetheless. And no doubt MTL and VAN love it when we come to town.

The crowds in Vancouver and Montreal were pitifully small. They were big in Toronto, but that kind of supports my point. I assure you interest in soccer didn't spike in Montreal, after we whipped their ass 6-1. :D

- Scott

cougars732
07-12-2009, 05:54 PM
the only way i see parity being compromised to a degree RIGHT NOW is if some nut job owner + management have the balls to trade for 4 DP slots and put together lucrative offers for international talent. 4 high caliber players (way above MLS' best) on one starting lineup. This will break the parity, albeit not entirely, but it will demonstrate how money talks and this will inspire owners to do the same.

A problem this will cause, if teams are brave enough to try it, is the supply of DP slots will run out. It is at this point that MLS will need to introduce a salary cap. Even further down the road...possibly as far as 50 years i MLS survives...we could see the removal of a salary cap hence teams must depend on revenue and owners and sponsors.

Feel free to shout me down. Just my dream way of giving this league a kick in the arse. I feel like each team has an equal chance of becoming that ONE team a la Man U. Just have to wait and see who has the balls to go out there and suffer some cash loss to eventually receive huge profit further down the road.

Yohan
07-12-2009, 05:56 PM
Rivalry would be replaced with a desire by smaller teams to beat bigger teams. Heck, it works that way everywhere else in the world. Why can't it work here?
I highly doubt that the sense of Toronto wants to beat Mtl and vice versa will ever be trumpted by 'big team vs small team' factor

what Canadian team doesn't want to beat up on Toronto? ;)

Super
07-12-2009, 05:56 PM
The crowds in Vancouver and Montreal were pitifully small. They were big in Toronto, but that kind of supports my point. I assure you interest in soccer didn't spike in Montreal, after we whipped their ass 6-1. :D

- Scott

But that's more an issue of stadium size. Vancouver was sold out. So was Montreal - and they even had no chance of beating us. People stayed home because of the poor weather, and of course also because when the date came around it was clear that MTL was out of the tournament.

Pityful small is equal to that of many MLS teams as well. And they'll remain pityfully small whether they win the title or not. It's just not a big sport in some cities. It's a day out with your kids - and not a trip to see a winning team. So why build the league around them and keep the strong markets back? Doesn't make sense to me.

Shakes McQueen
07-12-2009, 05:57 PM
the only way i see parity being compromised to a degree RIGHT NOW is if some nut job owner + management have the balls to trade for 4 DP slots and put together lucrative offers for international talent. 4 high caliber players (way above MLS' best) on one starting lineup. This will break the parity, albeit not entirely, but it will demonstrate how money talks and this will inspire owners to do the same.

A problem this will cause, if teams are brave enough to try it, is the supply of DP slots will run out. It is at this point that MLS will need to introduce a salary cap. Even further down the road...possibly as far as 50 years i MLS survives...we could see the removal of a salary cap hence teams must depend on revenue and owners and sponsors.

Feel free to shout me down. Just my dream way of giving this league a kick in the arse. I feel like each team has an equal chance of becoming that ONE team a la Man U. Just have to wait and see who has the balls to go out there and suffer some cash loss to eventually receive huge profit further down the road.

Having four DP slots and using them all would be suicide for a team. You'd have four great players, playing with seven incredibly cheap, shitty ones in order to fit them under the cap. And I guess your subs bench would consist of a bag of potato chips, and a can of tennis balls.

- Scott

Super
07-12-2009, 05:59 PM
I highly doubt that the sense of Toronto wants to beat Mtl and vice versa will ever be trumpted by 'big team vs small team' factor

what Canadian team doesn't want to beat up on Toronto? ;)

Lots of teams aren't rivals overseas, but it's understood that when the big teams come to town the fans demand everything from the players. Also, how sweet would it be for the little MLS teams when they get to kick some Toronto ass with our millions of dollars? Again, just saying this works everywhere else in the world. And the product is better on the pitch for it. More money for us to spend, and with a luxury tax the small markets will get more to spend as well. And so the sport grows because the product is better.

cougars732
07-12-2009, 06:01 PM
Having four DP slots and using them all would be suicide for a team. You'd have four great players, playing with seven incredibly cheap, shitty ones in order to fit them under the cap. And I guess your subs bench would consist of a bag of potato chips, and a can of tennis balls.

- Scott

Im not so sure...obviously it would be less than ideal but id be prepared to bet that more than a few players would take significant paycuts (veterans ie older Dero, Moreno) to play with talent. Just my opinion

Yohan
07-12-2009, 06:03 PM
Lots of teams aren't rivals overseas, but it's understood that when the big teams come to town the fans demand everything from the players. Also, how sweet would it be for the little MLS teams when they get to kick some Toronto ass with our millions of dollars? Again, just saying this works everywhere else in the world. And the product is better on the pitch for it. More money for us to spend, and with a luxury tax the small markets will get more to spend as well. And so the sport grows because the product is better.
just one team choose to spend big and buy a Chelski doesn't mean entire league will grow as a result

depends on which economic model is used, but if one team is willing to spend mega bucks, that doesn't mean other teams want to, or is able to. or just gets frustrated by not being able to match buck for buck and fold

it has to be a league wide consensus on willingness to spend. and currently, maybe 3 teams have the cash, and willingness to spend

Yohan
07-12-2009, 06:05 PM
Im not so sure...obviously it would be less than ideal but id be prepared to bet that more than a few players would take significant paycuts (veterans ie older Dero, Moreno) to play with talent. Just my opinion
didn't you pay attention to LA Galaxy season last year?

Shakes McQueen
07-12-2009, 06:10 PM
Im not so sure...obviously it would be less than ideal but id be prepared to bet that more than a few players would take significant paycuts (veterans ie older Dero, Moreno) to play with talent. Just my opinion

You would have four players taking up $1.6m of cap space, leaving you around $600k to sign the rest of your team.

You would literally need the rest of your team to sign for a salaries that equate to about a full-time minimum wage job.

- Scott

maninb
07-12-2009, 06:38 PM
Just read the WHOLE thread and this guy Super is just another MLS HATER like Giambac...MLS will NEVER be the EPL or La Liga or Serie A, it's best players will always be poached by Europe...but let's enjoy it for what it is and what it can be. TFC enjoys a far better fan experience than the Leafs or Blue Jays will ever enjoy, sure MLS can do sopme things better, especially the officiating... but Super comparing MLS to established Euro leagues and their PAY STRUCTURES is just nonsense...

Super
07-12-2009, 07:45 PM
Just read the WHOLE thread and this guy Super is just another MLS HATER like Giambac...MLS will NEVER be the EPL or La Liga or Serie A, it's best players will always be poached by Europe...but let's enjoy it for what it is and what it can be. TFC enjoys a far better fan experience than the Leafs or Blue Jays will ever enjoy, sure MLS can do sopme things better, especially the officiating... but Super comparing MLS to established Euro leagues and their PAY STRUCTURES is just nonsense...

I argue for changes that would improve the league - and I can assure you that large portions of the supporters on here would love to see changes made to the MLS structure (promoting the sport to soccer moms, and keeping the salary cap low). What's wrong with arguing for improvements to the league? And just for the record, part of my bias towards the pay structure in this league is that I am not a Canadian and grew up in Denmark (moved here at 24) so obviously I'll have a different take on everything. I spent a lot of money and time on TFC, and want the best possible for our team. If that makes me a hater in YOUR judging eyes, so be it. But seriously, you've got to chill.

Let me ask you this: How many supporters on here do you think;

a) watch MLS games regularly outside of TFC games?
b) want to see their hard earned dollars spent on TFC to go towards improving TFC?
c) feel that the MLS is wrong in promoting the sport to soccer moms

BayernTFC
07-12-2009, 07:47 PM
I agree, but ironically the Red Wings are a great model, because they operate superbly within a salary capped framework, by doing exactly what Jack suggested - hiring phenomenal scouts and coaches, and so on.

The Red Wings are a great example of how it's still possible to have a pretty consistently competitive team in a salary cap framework, by investing money in your team's infrastructure.

- Scott
I don't fundamentally disagree with what Jack posted. I just noted that it is difficult to plan for the future properly when the rules keep changing. I chose the Red Wings as an example carefully. I hope that TFC takes the same approach as the Red Wings have in order to build a consistently competitive side. I think that developing talent is very important to the long-term well being of a team. I just hope that MLS does a better job of allowing teams to develop talent and reap the rewards of their hard earned work. I am not arguing against a salary cap by the way. I don't care either way. My issue is more that the league has made some short-term decisions that may negatively affect the league in the long-term. Of course, this is all imho. I'll see what I can do as far as specific examples on that other issue.

Beach_Red
07-12-2009, 07:48 PM
I agree that this is exactly how leagues such as the EPL in europe work. I am not trying to argue that MLS should emulate European football leagues, just as I hope that they won't try to copy the success of the NFL. I want to see the MLS both survive and improve overall quality. I think that this can be an achievable goal while allowing some teams to be continually successful. I'd rather have the Detroit Red Wings as a model instead of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

How do you feel about the Pittsburgh Steelers as a model?

When I was growing up the Red Wings were terrible. They have been much better under the salary-cap NHL than they were for years before.

For a long time ythe NFL was a second-tier, regional league. The Rose Bowl was a more important football championship game than the NFL championship (remember, the Rose Bowl is about a hundred years old and the Super Bowl 40-something).

The NFL only started to be so "ingrained in the psyche" when it started operating the way it does now, after it merged with the AFL in the 60's. before that baseball so fr out ahead of every other sport it wasn't close.

The real comparison for MLS, though could be the NHL and NBA. When I was a kid in the early 70's both those leagues were regional with no national TV deals. They were on about the same level, maybe the NHL was even bigger in some US markets. But now the NBA is much more successful than the NHL.

I think one of the biggest differences between the two leagues is that a lot more kids play basketball than hockey in the US and they grow up to be fans of the game. Also, once the NBA got team in every region in the US they got a better TV contract and, like football, basketball became very popular in the NCAA.

MLS could follow the NBA that way and become at least as popular as basketball in the US.

Beach_Red
07-12-2009, 08:15 PM
I argue for changes that would improve the league - and I can assure you that large portions of the supporters on here would love to see changes made to the MLS structure (promoting the sport to soccer moms, and keeping the salary cap low). What's wrong with arguing for improvements to the league?


You're right.

The thing is, many of us have seen many sports leagues (not just soccer) fail in North America, so we're cautious. We want the league to improve, but we don't want it to fail.

I don't really know why they marketed to soccer moms, unless they were really marketing to the kids the moms brought with them. That's some long-term strategy, but it's a very competitive sports market in America.

Super
07-12-2009, 08:19 PM
You're right.

The thing is, many of us have seen many sports leagues (not just soccer) fail in North America, so we're cautious. We want the league to improve, but we don't want it to fail.

I don't really know why they marketed to soccer moms, unless they were really marketing to the kids the moms brought with them. That's some long-term strategy, but it's a very competitive sports market in America.

No doubt we have to be careful, and that is why the league should make steps to improve the league without gambling anything. Increasing the salary cap to a point where the money is there is responsible. But instead we now have a system where we can bring in a player like DeGuzman and give him $7 million - all to one guy, and yet we can only spend $2.5 on our entire squad. I mean, it just makes zero sense. Salary cap is in place to prevent irresponsible spending above all, and yet shelling out 3 times the salary cap on a single player is considered okay. (Having said that, I'd love to see DeGuzman here, but it's still an odd way to run a league).

Yohan
07-12-2009, 08:20 PM
You're right.

The thing is, many of us have seen many sports leagues (not just soccer) fail in North America, so we're cautious. We want the league to improve, but we don't want it to fail.

I don't really know why they marketed to soccer moms, unless they were really marketing to the kids the moms brought with them. That's some long-term strategy, but it's a very competitive sports market in America.
is it really a league directive to promote to soccer moms?

it seems to me that it's up to individual teams to decide which fan base to target and how to advertise

Super
07-12-2009, 08:35 PM
is it really a league directive to promote to soccer moms?

it seems to me that it's up to individual teams to decide which fan base to target and how to advertise

You're right about that one.

Beach_Red
07-12-2009, 08:54 PM
No doubt we have to be careful, and that is why the league should make steps to improve the league without gambling anything. Increasing the salary cap to a point where the money is there is responsible. But instead we now have a system where we can bring in a player like DeGuzman and give him $7 million - all to one guy, and yet we can only spend $2.5 on our entire squad. I mean, it just makes zero sense. Salary cap is in place to prevent irresponsible spending above all, and yet shelling out 3 times the salary cap on a single player is considered okay. (Having said that, I'd love to see DeGuzman here, but it's still an odd way to run a league).

A very odd way. They're trying to appease too many people, the ones who see the necessity for the salary cap and the ones who insist the league needs "stars." The whole designated player rule is crazy.

It would certainly make more sense to simply raise the salary cap and let teams decide how much they want to spend on each player. And we're not even getting into allocation money :facepalm:.

Still, I'm more optimistic about MLS than about any other sports league I've seen start up in the last twenty-five years. Part of that is simply that it's soccer and there are enough players in the world to stock twenty good teams in North America if they spend the money but alsobecause the league isn't makingthe same old mistakes. Sometimes it feels like it's moving far too slowly but with TFC, Seattle and the newer teams it's certainly picking up momentum.

By the way, when MLS first started I was vaguely interested, but when it looked like DC United was going to dominate and win every year I didn't bother with the league.

BayernTFC
07-12-2009, 08:56 PM
I'm not looking for specifics on gambling data - I'm looking for examples of players tanking a game (or season), in a league with a salary cap, and a draft - NBA, NHL, etc.
Here's an interesting read:

http://www.lvrj.com/sports/7926527.html


Something funny was going on right under David Stern's nose, and the NBA commissioner pretended not to notice. The outcome of several games late in the regular season seemed almost predetermined to many league observers, a group that included bookmakers and gamblers.



And the issue had nothing to do with the wild conspiracy theory that some games are scripted in the smoky back rooms of Las Vegas sports books. The questionable practice of tanking games to gain a more favorable position in the draft lottery falls squarely on the powerful people inside a few NBA franchises.


For some teams, the last month of the season disintegrated into a comical attempt to cover up a desire to lose -- and hopefully win the right to a higher draft pick.


"That's something the NBA has to address," MGM Mirage sports book director Robert Walker said. "This happens every year, but maybe not as rampant as it happened this year. It's a sad system when you are getting rewarded by losing."


On April 11, the Timberwolves announced 7-foot All-Star Kevin Garnett would be out indefinitely with a quadriceps injury. The timing of the injury fueled speculation the team was trying to secure its draft pick. Minnesota needed to finish with one of the league's 10-worst records to keep the pick; otherwise it would have gone to the Los Angeles Clippers.


The Timberwolves, playing without Garnett, were routed 110-91 by San Antonio on April 13. The Spurs opened as 10 1/2-point road favorites and the line moved to 12 1/2. In the April 18 season finale, Memphis blew out Minnesota, 116-94. The Grizzlies, with the league's worst record secured, moved from 3 1/2-point road underdogs to 2 1/2-point favorites.


"I definitely was playing against Minnesota, Memphis and Boston. It was very apparent to the betting public that those teams were tanking games," said handicapper Jim Kruger of vegassportsauthority.com.


While the Timberwolves sat Garnett and the Celtics rested star Paul Pierce, the Bucks shelved leading scorer Michael Redd for the final six games because of a knee injury.


Milwaukee closed the season 3-13, including 2-2 in the last four games after its lottery position was guaranteed.
T
he Bucks lost 121-107 to Washington on April 1. The Wizards opened as 3-point road favorites and the line closed 5. Eight days later, Milwaukee put an unrecognizable lineup on the floor in a 117-94 loss to Orlando. The Magic opened as a 3 1/2-point road favorite and the line closed 6.


"This was the most ridiculous regular season in recent memory," said Kezirian, who called several of the NBA games in question "essentially fixed."

Yohan
07-12-2009, 09:00 PM
A very odd way. They're trying to appease too many people, the ones who see the necessity for the salary cap and the ones who insist the league needs "stars." The whole designated player rule is crazy.

It would certainly make more sense to simply raise the salary cap and let teams decide how much they want to spend on each player. And we're not even getting into allocation money :facepalm:.

I personally think DP rule makes sense in terms of trying to bring in a star player without being too financially risky, but allocation. holy shit that stuff is hard to understand :facepalm:

Shakes McQueen
07-12-2009, 09:07 PM
These aren't examples, they are officials from gambling companies accusing teams of tanking, based on nothing but their own observations, which were never substantiated enough to be investigated by the league.

And I also said previously that resting starters is not "tanking" a game:


It just doesn't happen. Brian Burke explained it best when he joined the Leafs - you can't tell the players in the locker room to just not play their hearts out. Sure, you can tool with the lineup a bit, and field some weaker players, but whoever is on that bench is going to give everything they have to succeed. Athletes are competitors - they don't care about the front office's long term goals. They want to win every night, and a coach would completely lose the room if he seriously tried to tell his team to tank a game.

Nothing in this gambling article indicates that the players on the court were told to throw the game - just that starters were rested because of minor injuries, and then lots of conjecture about why they might be doing that.

- Scott

BayernTFC
07-12-2009, 09:32 PM
How do you feel about the Pittsburgh Steelers as a model?

When I was growing up the Red Wings were terrible. They have been much better under the salary-cap NHL than they were for years before.
I chose the Red Wings and Bucaneers for a specific reason. Both weren't winners for a while (that's putting things lightly for the Bucs), and both have tackled the cap system differently. The Detroit Red Wings scouted, drafted and developed talent very well. Management made timely additions to the squad without disrupting the core of the team or resorting to wholesale changes in the squad. Many of us know how that has turned out. The Bucaneers mortgaged a good portion of their future for coach jon Gruden. They won the Super Bowl that year in 2002, but have only made the playoffs twice since then losing both wildcard games (first round of playoffs). The Bucs have been competitive in some seasons and lousy in others since their win in 2002. Nothing against the Steelers, but I don't think the NFL makes a good comparison to MLS. NFL doesn't have guaranteed contracts and their supply of talent is larger and virtually exclusive.


For a long time ythe NFL was a second-tier, regional league. The Rose Bowl was a more important football championship game than the NFL championship (remember, the Rose Bowl is about a hundred years old and the Super Bowl 40-something).

The NFL only started to be so "ingrained in the psyche" when it started operating the way it does now, after it merged with the AFL in the 60's. before that baseball so fr out ahead of every other sport it wasn't close.
College football is huge in the U.S., but the NFL has always enjoyed a significant following. It certainly has grown over the years. My comment about American "psyche" was in regards to the sport of North American Football and not the NFL:

There is a built in audience that the NFL enjoys due to the way North American football is incorporated into U.S. society. European football/Soccer does not enjoy that type of hold on the psyche of most North Americans.
The real comparison for MLS, though could be the NHL and NBA. When I was a kid in the early 70's both those leagues were regional with no national TV deals. They were on about the same level, maybe the NHL was even bigger in some US markets. But now the NBA is much more successful than the NHL.

I think one of the biggest differences between the two leagues is that a lot more kids play basketball than hockey in the US and they grow up to be fans of the game. Also, once the NBA got team in every region in the US they got a better TV contract and, like football, basketball became very popular in the NCAA.

MLS could follow the NBA that way and become at least as popular as basketball in the US.
The NHL and NBA are probably better comparisons. I hope that MLS will try to appeal to fans in North America in a unique way. Borrowing some things from other leagues is appropriate, but trying to outright copy another league's success is a mistake imho. I would rather not see MLS look like NFL Europe does.

Shakes McQueen
07-12-2009, 09:35 PM
The NHL and NBA are probably better comparisons. I hope that MLS will try to appeal to fans in North America in a unique way. Borrowing some things from other leagues is appropriate, but trying to outright copy another league's success is a mistake imho. I would rather not see MLS look like NFL Europe does.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

- Scott

BayernTFC
07-12-2009, 09:56 PM
These aren't examples, they are officials from gambling companies accusing teams of tanking, based on nothing but their own observations, which were never substantiated enough to be investigated by the league.

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1138020/index.htm

According to MacGregor, Firestone (http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/topic/article/Bridgestone_Corporation/1900-01-01/2100-12-31/mdd/index.htm) said that the Senators (http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/topic/article/Ottawa_Senators/1900-01-01/2100-12-31/mdd/index.htm) were prepared to pull their goalie to make sure Boston (http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/topic/article/Boston/1900-01-01/2100-12-31/mdd/index.htm) won; that it had been difficult "keeping the restraints" on Bowness over the final weeks of the season; and that Firestone (http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/topic/article/Bridgestone_Corporation/1900-01-01/2100-12-31/mdd/index.htm) himself had had a plan to guarantee four players roster spots for next season if those players helped assure a loss to the Bruins. "It is no coincidence," MacGregor said Firestone (http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/topic/article/Bridgestone_Corporation/1900-01-01/2100-12-31/mdd/index.htm) told him, "that those four players will be back with the team next season." None of the other reporters in attendance that night have publicly challenged the gist of MacGregor's account.
He said that four players had individually approached him of their own volition to ask if management felt that getting the first pick was in the team's best interest over the long run. Firestone (http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/topic/article/Bridgestone_Corporation/1900-01-01/2100-12-31/mdd/index.htm) said he had replied, "Sure"—and left it at that.http://www.nhlscap.com/draft.htm

In 1993, the San Jose Sharks accused the Ottawa Senators of intentionally throwing games in order to get the #1 overall pick to take Alexandre Daigle. (Years later, the Senators later admitted they did in fact do this.)
And I also said previously that resting starters is not "tanking" a game:
Just because you don't think that it's tanking, doesn't mean it isn't. If resting players is done specifically in order to lose so that your team will gain a better draft position or other advantage, then it's tanking. The players may or may not be involved, but someone within the team structure made a conscious decision. It is difficult to prove though.


When a team intentionally loses a game to obtain a perceived future competitive advantage rather than gamblers being involved, the team is often said to have tanked the game instead of having thrown it.
http://www.answers.com/topic/match-fixing

thisisinternetclash
07-12-2009, 11:23 PM
Resting starters when there's no ostensible benefit to doing so and no compellingly genuine injury or disciplinary concern enforcing that decision is quite suspicious, and very likely a deliberate attempt to increase a team's chance of losing without actively encouraging it's players to do so. There have been some very clear suggestions of this sort of behaviour in the NBA in recent years, particularly in season's preceding a highly sought-after draft class (i.e. Oden and Durant, recently).

profit89
07-13-2009, 07:16 AM
What made the NFL what it is today isn't the hard cap of recent years... it was the memorable upsets of years past.

Joe Namath and the Jets in SuperBowl III.. 22 point underdogs... and they walked away with the win. Football exploded after that.

David v Goliath... a very important dynamic in sports.

http://bleacherreport.com/images_root/image_pictures/0043/1626/joe_namath_feature.jpg

profit89
07-13-2009, 07:21 AM
What made Italia '90 a memorable World Cup wasn;t the final between the evenly matched Argentines versus the Germans.

It was the opening match... where a "lowly" team from Africa, outmatched by the reigning World Champions Argentina, were supposed to lay down. They didn't. Final score.. Cameroon 1-nil.

Football in Africa exploded after that.

David vs. Goliath... crucial dynamic in sports.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldss7IDQhQ0




.

Oldtimer
07-13-2009, 07:27 AM
I chose the Red Wings and Bucaneers for a specific reason. Both weren't winners for a while (that's putting things lightly for the Bucs), and both have tackled the cap system differently. The Detroit Red Wings scouted, drafted and developed talent very well. Management made timely additions to the squad without disrupting the core of the team or resorting to wholesale changes in the squad. Many of us know how that has turned out.


In MLS the New England Revolution has followed the same model.
Great drafting and bringing up the young players to become key pieces of the team has made them consistent performers. The Revs have notoriously cheap ownership, however they have done well despite that.

It looks like MoJo is following the same model. IMO that is the formula for success in MLS. However, MLSE seems willing to spring for a DP, as well. Would that help put the team over from being regular performers to MLS Cup/Supporters' Shield winners? Only if we actually get a DP (JDG or someone else) can we see if it would work. No one else seems to have done that.

Clubs that depend on a DP to make an otherwise crappy team good don't seem to do that well.

Shakes McQueen
07-13-2009, 08:11 AM
What made the NFL what it is today isn't the hard cap of recent years... it was the memorable upsets of years past.

Joe Namath and the Jets in SuperBowl III.. 22 point underdogs... and they walked away with the win. Football exploded after that.

David v Goliath... a very important dynamic in sports.

http://bleacherreport.com/images_root/image_pictures/0043/1626/joe_namath_feature.jpg

Super Bowl III wasn't a "David & Goliath" story - both teams were in the SUPERBOWL. Yes, the NFL's Colts were considered heavy favourites over the AFL's Jets, but both teams were very good, and most predictions were based on poor showings by the AFL in the previous two Super Bowls. It would be like Man Utd playing Villareal, not Man Utd. playing Exeter City.

And attributing the NFL's entire success as a league to that game, is nonsense. The NFL succeeded for decades before that, and fended off several rival leagues before the AFL formed. Taking a quick look at Wikipedia, the Nielsen ratings for Super Bown III were a whopping 36.0, and attendance at the game was over 75,000 people. Sounds like a popular product to me. The merger with the AFL did a lot to consolidate the NFL's popularity in the US, but that had nothing to do with Super Bowl III.

- Scott

Shakes McQueen
07-13-2009, 08:21 AM
Football in Africa exploded after that.

Qualify this statement. Interest in football, especially in Cameroon itself, had been growing exponentially for about 30 years before they made a mark on the world stage in World Cup '90.

African Nations Cup matches were pretty much guaranteed full houses in the 10-15 years before World Cup '90.

- Scott

Beach_Red
07-13-2009, 08:42 AM
Super Bowl III wasn't a "David & Goliath" story - both teams were in the SUPERBOWL. Yes, the NFL's Colts were considered heavy favourites over the AFL's Jets, but both teams were very good, and most predictions were based on poor showings by the AFL in the previous two Super Bowls. It would be like Man Utd playing Villareal, not Man Utd. playing Exeter City.

And attributing the NFL's entire success as a league to that game, is nonsense. The NFL succeeded for decades before that, and fended off several rival leagues before the AFL formed. Taking a quick look at Wikipedia, the Nielsen ratings for Super Bown III were a whopping 36.0, and attendance at the game was over 75,000 people. Sounds like a popular product to me. The merger with the AFL did a lot to consolidate the NFL's popularity in the US, but that had nothing to do with Super Bowl III.

- Scott

No, Shakes, he's making a good point. the AFL hadn't been around that long and was definiately a poor sister to the NFL. TV ratings for the game were huge but a lot of that had to do with the drama of the 'upstart' Jets talking so big and Broadway Joe, "guaranteeing" a win when they were such underdogs.

The merged NFL was still way, way, way behind baseball. In the post-war years pro fooball was treated a lot like pro wrestling and it was very different form college football. Football was even integrated and Jackie Robinson had been a star at UCLA but he chose to play baseball because integrating baseball would make the news - and he was right.

After that Super Bowl TV ratings continued to be good for the NFL (they weren't so good before). The NFL itself had to but the air time on Monday nights and find their own sponsors because no network was willing to broadcast.

But even after saying all that, once, "Football exploded," (and all we mean is pro football became a major sport and a rival to baseball) the usefullness of "David vs, Goliath" is gone. Once David wins the battle, there's no more story there and you have to move on to something else. That bomb has exploded, to carry the metaphor, and is no longer of any use.

The NFL used that as a jumping off point, not something that could be sustained forever.

And, if the USMT does really, really well at the World Cup then soccer will, "explode in America," and be sustained afterwards.

Now, where's that stuff about fixing soccer games? It could come in handy....

JonO
07-13-2009, 08:45 AM
And no doubt MTL and VAN love it when we come to town.I took a quick, unscientific look at the attendance stats and it doesn't appear to have been affected by our presence, so maybe not...

Fort York Redcoat
07-13-2009, 08:46 AM
I think this is only partly true. You need a dynasty or two, the teams everyone strives to be and maybe loves to hate, to go along with the parity. Otherwise you don't care enough about any games that your team is not playing.

I think the NFL is the model in this, as in most things. They have parity, dynasties, and they have the Cowboys.

Parity is hard to achieve, though. You're right about that. No sport aside from the NFL and MLS has it.

This is funny to me. Parity has infected NA so badly we call two in a row "dynasties". The NFL had dynasties the NHL had dynasties now they have "modern dynasties". I know many people think this a small difference but it spotlights how sensitive the sports market here is trying to keep it's "Everybody's a winner" mentality.

mclaren
07-13-2009, 08:48 AM
I truly do hate this model. Why don't we just flip a coin and select the winner at random that way. At the end of it all it's pretty random who wins anyway - no advantages given to clubs with greater history, wealth, support, or location. No opponent is more interesting than any other, and no dynasty will ever form in this league. No team will stand out - good or bad. It's as boring as a baseball game that runs 26 innings with the winner found on a lucky hit.

So yeah, I have an intense hate for any sort of forced parity in sports. It's handicap at its worst, and takes all the fun out of the game. No wonder the world laughs at the Mickey Soccer League. I know I do. And I only watch our games - I don't care about the rest. It's all random who wins anyway. No surprises. It's like a league for old men with a heart condition who can't handle too much excitement.

Thankfully, though, BMO has a great atmosphere, and I share the experience of watching a game with a great bunch of people, and that's the reason why I go. That, and the fact that it's all I can get - so I take it.

Well said, agree fully with this.

Shakes McQueen
07-13-2009, 08:51 AM
No, Shakes, he's making a good point. the AFL hadn't been around that long and was definiately a poor sister to the NFL. TV ratings for the game were huge but a lot of that had to do with the drama of the 'upstart' Jets talking so big and Broadway Joe, "guaranteeing" a win when they were such underdogs.

The merged NFL was still way, way, way behind baseball. In the post-war years pro fooball was treated a lot like pro wrestling and it was very different form college football. Football was even integrated and Jackie Robinson had been a star at UCLA but he chose to play baseball because integrating baseball would make the news - and he was right.

After that Super Bowl TV ratings continued to be good for the NFL (they weren't so good before). The NFL itself had to but the air time on Monday nights and find their own sponsors because no network was willing to broadcast.

But even after saying all that, once, "Football exploded," (and all we mean is pro football became a major sport and a rival to baseball) the usefullness of "David vs, Goliath" is gone. Once David wins the battle, there's no more story there and you have to move on to something else. That bomb has exploded, to carry the metaphor, and is no longer of any use.

The NFL used that as a jumping off point, not something that could be sustained forever.

And, if the USMT does really, really well at the World Cup then soccer will, "explode in America," and be sustained afterwards.

Now, where's that stuff about fixing soccer games? It could come in handy....

Super Bowl II's TV ratings were a 36.6, and the ratings for Super Bowl I were a 41.1. You're right to say that the game was heavily publicized because of Namath's comments, but to say the league exploded because of that game and it's outcome, is just not true.

The NFL-AFL merger, and racial integration in the NFL, had way more to do with the leagues success, than the outcome of one championship game.

And like you said, while an underdog COUNTRY doing well in an international competition can grow that sport's popularity in a country, it isn't a sustained effect.

- Scott

JonO
07-13-2009, 08:52 AM
This is funny to me. Parity has infected NA so badly we call two in a row "dynasties". The NFL had dynasties the NHL had dynasties now they have "modern dynasties". I know many people think this a small difference but it spotlights how sensitive the sports market here is trying to keep it's "Everybody's a winner" mentality.It's not that eveyone is a winner - because clearly there can only be one winner. It's that everyone can be a winner if they are managed properly...

Honestly, how many people would support TFC if there was practically no chance of them finishing higher than 4th or 5th every year?

TFC~Vatreni
07-13-2009, 08:54 AM
I guess you have to gauge the MLS' growth to the game of soccer's growth in quality as a whole. Is MLS on pace with world growth? Is it growing faster/slower? I don't know how you could measure that so I suppose as long as you enjoy watching MLS games then the model is working so far.

Beach_Red
07-13-2009, 08:54 AM
This is funny to me. Parity has infected NA so badly we call two in a row "dynasties". The NFL had dynasties the NHL had dynasties now they have "modern dynasties". I know many people think this a small difference but it spotlights how sensitive the sports market here is trying to keep it's "Everybody's a winner" mentality.


I don't know what you're talking about, the NFL has dynasties now. Sure, when there were six teams three of them won more often, but even since it's been a truly national league some teams have won far more often than others.

I grew up in Montreal in the 70's and pretty much gave up on hockey when the Canadiens won it every year. It was boring. Sure it was a little more fun when the Islanders came along, but then they won it every year and became just as arrogant as the Habs. And then the Oilers won so many it was uninteresting (I have other problems with hockey now ;)).

The atttude isn't, "everybody's a winner," it's more like, "everybody plays by the same rules and we'll see who wins." The NFL made the smart move to realize that TV ratings are the products of both teams on the field, not just one and if all 32 teams can generat TV ratings they'll be freaking huge.

Also, it keeps us from hanging our team's success on the whims of a Russian billionaire trying to launder his money.

flatpicker
07-13-2009, 08:58 AM
Honestly, how many people would support TFC if there was practically no chance of them finishing higher than 4th or 5th every year?


well, considering very few people in North America give two-sh!ts about finishing first in a league knowing that there team will still make the playoffs and have a chance for a post-season upset, I would be willing to bet lot's of people would still follow TFC in that situation.


The best model in NA sports, as far as I can see, is baseball.
Now there is a league where very few teams make the post-season.
Just look at how excited teams are to win the pennant!
It's two almost-independent leagues that send their best teams to face each other in a final.

Now, the spending in baseball is a different matter... that is a little out of hand.
I'm not a fan of parity, but baseball has a rich-poor gap that is extreme, like that of the English Prem.

I don't care for complete parity, but I also dislike huge advantages.
There is a middle ground.

Fort York Redcoat
07-13-2009, 09:00 AM
It's not so much about "rewarding" losing, as it is an attempt by the league to maintain competitive parity. You'll never see a team intentionally tank their season to get the "reward" of a high draft pick.





What? You mean in this league, right?

But isn't the present model going to look to one day be successful enough as the leagues that does happen in here?

Shakes McQueen
07-13-2009, 09:04 AM
It's not that eveyone is a winner - because clearly there can only be one winner. It's that everyone can be a winner if they are managed properly...

Exactly.

The difference between a salary capped league, versus a non-capped one, is that in a capped league, success comes down to who has the best management and infrastructure. In a non-capped league, it just comes down to who has the most money to throw at players.

I find it mind-boggling that people are actually disappointed that teams rarely win a championship in North America more than twice in a row these days. Isn't that a good thing? Doesn't that keep things interesting?

And while teams might not win the ultimate prize 5 years in a row, there are many examples of teams staying competitive for years at a time. LA Lakers anyone? Detroit Red Wings?

I just fail to see how a model in which some teams can buy success every season, and other teams can scarcely compete against them, is considered a good, fair thing, but a wage cap is considered an unfair limitation.

- Scott

Beach_Red
07-13-2009, 09:07 AM
Super Bowl II's TV ratings were a 36.6, and the ratings for Super Bowl I were a 41.1. You're right to say that the game was heavily publicized because of Namath's comments, but to say the league exploded because of that game and it's outcome, is just not true.

The NFL-AFL merger, and racial integration in the NFL, had way more to do with the leagues success, than the outcome of one championship game.

And like you said, while an underdog COUNTRY doing well in an international competition can grow that sport's popularity in a country, it isn't a sustained effect.

- Scott

Okay, but that game created a story, it created drama and media interest beyond just the game itself, it became the thing of legends!

Ha ha, okay, but there's some truth to it. There were lots of books and movies about baseball and a few about college football and, of course, the other sport that was huge in America at the time and generated even better TV ratings - boxing - had plenty of literature. But not so much pro football. And that Super Bowl was perfect for the time.

I suppose if the Colts had crushed the Jets, beaten them by the 22, there'd be no NFL today. Oh no, wait, that's not right. The NFL would have continued to grow and generate media interest with other stories.

But people love the "turning point" stories and the dramatic moments. The US men's hockey team gold medal really did give hockey a push it's still living off.

I think, though, all this talk of dynasties and "big teams," and David and Goliaths is the kind of thing that gets the casual observer interested. It's easy to follow. Sometimes those casual fans get turned into permanent fans, but not often enough to use tha as basis to grow the league (aurghh, I used grow as a verb, crap).

Hockey just can't seem to penetrate into the sports psyche in the US - even after the upset Gold Medal win and the Sanley Cup living permanently in the US, so there is a lot more to it than just the David and Goliath aspect.

And in the US, of course, nothing is ever the David invthat story....

Fort York Redcoat
07-13-2009, 09:08 AM
just one team choose to spend big and buy a Chelski doesn't mean entire league will grow as a result



Interesting example. Before "Chelski" many would say the EPL had the "big 3". Now it's always talk of the "big 4".

Shakes McQueen
07-13-2009, 09:09 AM
well, considering very few people in North America give two-sh!ts about finishing first in a league knowing that there team will still make the playoffs and have a chance for a post-season upset, I would be willing to bet lot's of people would still follow TFC in that situation.

That's not really true. There are benefits to winning your division in, for example, the NHL. You get home-ice advantage in the playoffs. And finishing with a higher seed in the playoffs, ensures you will get ostensibly "weaker" opposition all through the playoffs, since NHL playoff matchups use the 1v8, 2v7,... matching system.

And of course, there's also the President's Trophy, for the team with the best regular season record.

- Scott

Daveisonfire
07-13-2009, 09:12 AM
There's parity...and then there's NYRB:lol:

flatpicker
07-13-2009, 09:13 AM
That's not really true. There are benefits to winning your division in, for example, the NHL. You get home-ice advantage in the playoffs. And finishing with a higher seed in the playoffs, ensures you will get ostensibly "weaker" opposition all through the playoffs, since NHL playoff matchups use the 1v8, 2v7,... matching system.

And of course, there's also the President's Trophy, for the team with the best regular season record.

- Scott

oh please... how many hockey fans really care about their team winning the President's Trophy???

And yes, there is an advantage to finishing in a higher playoff spot,
but really, fans only care about getting into the playoffs... once that starts, it's a brand new season.

Pookie
07-13-2009, 09:14 AM
For all of those that argue that the MLS needs to improve the quality of play before it can grow, here's a challenge.

If you were to compare NCAA Football vs the NFL or NCAA Basketball vs the NBA, I think it is safe to say that both the NFL and the NBA offer the highest quality of play.

Yet the NCAA doesn't have any trouble drawing fans to watch a 52-46 basketball game or any one of their meaningless Bowl games on the football side.

Why?

Talent isn't a draw. It's all about a sense of supporting something you feel you belong to. In the NCAA example, it's a sense of belonging to a school.

Why did Toronto and Seattle sell out before their "quality of play" was known? Same reason. It was sold based on the idea of belonging to something. A "nation" within a nation.

Quality of play is a bit of an elitist argument that assumes that people will only watch the best leagues, particularly in North America.

The NCAA proves that it isn't necessarily true. People will watch sports with lower quality if they feel they belong to the team on the field. Real fans buy the tickets. They are affordable and offer something which is arguably move valuable than seeing a 'star' player... a sense of community.

I agree with Jack in the OP. The MLS is working and working quite well in a few cities.

Fort York Redcoat
07-13-2009, 09:17 AM
And of course, there's also the President's Trophy, for the team with the best regular season record.

- Scott

First you say tanking doesn't exist when I hear the word more than "win" during the NHL season and now you're actually using the the Presidents trophy as a recognized and honoured accomplishment?

I wish. I pity the winner of the NHL season because more times than not they don't have enough in the tank to win the post season tounament that actually gets the ticker tape parade.

flatpicker
07-13-2009, 09:23 AM
I wish. I pity the winner of the NHL season because more times than not they don't have enough in the tank to win the post season tounament that actually gets the ticker tape parade.


I agree with that.
It's lame that a team will battle through 82 games and finish first at the end of the season,
yet few people give two sh!ts about it.

Shakes McQueen
07-13-2009, 09:24 AM
oh please... how many hockey fans really care about their team winning the President's Trophy???

And yes, there is an advantage to finishing in a higher playoff spot,
but really, fans only care about getting into the playoffs... once that starts, it's a brand new season.

I think people only care about their team making the playoffs, if they are in a dogfight to actually make the playoffs. Beggars can't be choosers.

But I frequent hockey message boards, and I can tell you Washington and New Jersey fans were absolutely concerned about their seed placement going into the post-season. Especially with the weak finish to the year both teams had.

The was was true in the Western Conference. No one wanted their team to have to play Anaheim, who were red-hot going into the playoffs, so where they seeded was a big deal to fans of San Jose, Detroit, and Vancouver.

The first goal of any NHL team is for their team to just make the playoffs, you're totally right. But once that goal is attained, where you finish in the conference is a big deal.

And you're right, no one really cares that much about the President's Trophy. :)

- Scott

Fort York Redcoat
07-13-2009, 09:24 AM
For all of those that argue that the MLS needs to improve the quality of play before it can grow, here's a challenge.

If you were to compare NCAA Football vs the NFL or NCAA Basketball vs the NBA, I think it is safe to say that both the NFL and the NBA offer the highest quality of play.

Yet the NCAA doesn't have any trouble drawing fans to watch a 52-46 basketball game or any one of their meaningless Bowl games on the football side.

Why?

Talent isn't a draw. It's all about a sense of supporting something you feel you belong to. In the NCAA example, it's a sense of belonging to a school.

Why did Toronto and Seattle sell out before their "quality of play" was known? Same reason. It was sold based on the idea of belonging to something. A "nation" within a nation.

Quality of play is a bit of an elitist argument that assumes that people will only watch the best leagues, particularly in North America.

The NCAA proves that it isn't necessarily true. People will watch sports with lower quality if they feel they belong to the team on the field. Real fans buy the tickets. They are affordable and offer something which is arguably move valuable than seeing a 'star' player... a sense of community.

I agree with Jack in the OP. The MLS is working and working quite well in a few cities.

Well said Pook but why stop there? The whole parity model is based on an winner hope mentality so people can jump on when the local is doing well. What if people just supported their local to belong even if they knew the local wasn't gonna be the "top 4"?

Or is that taking your belonging model a bit too far?:reddevil::smilewinkgrin:

Fort York Redcoat
07-13-2009, 09:27 AM
I don't know what you're talking about, the NFL has dynasties now.

Who won 3 in a row?

(Honestly. I don't follow.)

Shakes McQueen
07-13-2009, 09:33 AM
Who won 3 in a row?

(Honestly. I don't follow.)

Is the threshold for a dynasty winning the championship three times in a row?

The Dallas Cowboys were considered to be a dynasty in the 1990's, but they won the Super Bowl three times in four years, not three times in a row.

- Scott

Beach_Red
07-13-2009, 09:41 AM
Well said Pook but why stop there. The whole parity model is based on an winner hope mentality so people can jump on when the local is doing well. What if people just supported their local to belong even if they knew the local wasn't gonna be the "top 4".

Or is that taking your belonging model a bit too far?:reddevil::smilewinkgrin:

Lots of American sports fans support teams that never win - Detroit Lions fans, Chicago Cubs fans, New York Knicks fans - it's not just Maple Leaf fans, though they think they're the only ones.

Sometimes those teams do finish in the Top 4 in the regular season.

No NFL team has ever won 3 Super Bowls in a row. The Steelers won 4 in 5 years in the 70's.

Shakes McQueen
07-13-2009, 09:47 AM
Oh man, just thinking of Detroit Lions fans makes me sad as a human being, hahaha.

- Scott

Pookie
07-13-2009, 09:53 AM
Well said Pook but why stop there. The whole parity model is based on an winner hope mentality so people can jump on when the local is doing well. What if people just supported their local to belong even if they knew the local wasn't gonna be the "top 4".

Or is that taking your belonging model a bit too far?:reddevil::smilewinkgrin:

Hmmm... supporting a local that would never be top 4.... Well, as a Canadian team, in a climate with runaway spending and a fluctuating dollar, that would sum up Toronto's position quite well. :reddevil::smilewinkgrin:

I guess it could work. I tend to like being in the playoff hunt with a chance. But to each his own I guess. Lots of Jays fans still enjoy a pleasant afternoon eating hot dogs.

Provided of course that the top 4 didn't run themselves into debt trouble. I mean how silly would that be to base the health of your league on 4 teams that had billions in debt. That would be the hallmark of a failed model and surely not a good thing... no?

Fort York Redcoat
07-13-2009, 10:17 AM
Is the threshold for a dynasty winning the championship three times in a row?

- Scott

Yes. Otherwise it's a modern dynasty.

Fort York Redcoat
07-13-2009, 10:23 AM
Lots of American sports fans support teams that never win - Detroit Lions fans, Chicago Cubs fans, New York Knicks fans - it's not just Maple Leaf fans, though they think they're the only ones.

Sometimes those teams do finish in the Top 4 in the regular season.



Your first statement seems it could support a non-parity system (I'm sure that wasn't your inent:)) while the second is great for those fans that appreciate regular season effort- but how many do?

BayernTFC
07-13-2009, 10:35 AM
In MLS the New England Revolution has followed the same model.
Great drafting and bringing up the young players to become key pieces of the team has made them consistent performers. The Revs have notoriously cheap ownership, however they have done well despite that.

You have made a series of excellent points Old Timer. My concern is whether teams such as New England will continue to be as effective at developing and using talent as they have in the past. I really hope that the reserve league and lost developmental roster spots will return in the future. What's MLS' alternative? The last thing that I want to see is the NFL approach to player retention being used in the MLS. There is so much player turnover in that league, some teams are unrecognizable from season to season. I don't think that it's a wise choice for teams to outsource all player development.


It looks like MoJo is following the same model. IMO that is the formula for success in MLS. However, MLSE seems willing to spring for a DP, as well. Would that help put the team over from being regular performers to MLS Cup/Supporters' Shield winners? Only if we actually get a DP (JDG or someone else) can we see if it would work. No one else seems to have done that.
While it looks as though Mo has followed this model, Toronto FC are still a very young franchise. Three years does not a trend make imho. Also, I have noticed something worrying. We only have one second round pick and one fourth round pick in the 2010 draft. Mo traded our first and second round picks to Dallas, and our third round pick to San Jose. Furthermore it looks as though our 2011 first round pick belongs to Chivas:

Soccer America says (http://www.socceramerica.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=26168) word is that Chivas is guaranteed a first rounder out of the Guevara deal. Since they got a second rounder in this year's draft, that means they should probably get TFC's 2010 first rounder. Although, they can't give that pick to both Dallas and Toronto. Since the Dallas trade specifically mentions it, it's probably going there.http://usasoccer.blogspot.com/2008/08/2010-mls-superdraft-picks.html

Perhaps Mo believes that we had an excellent draft this year and that there aren't enough developmental spots left open to be concerned about the drafts in the near future? As far as DPs are concerned, I think that it depends on the player that is brought in and how well they fit into the team.


Clubs that depend on a DP to make an otherwise crappy team good don't seem to do that well.
One player can only do so much in a team sport. The best player in the world won't be able to do much if he is surrounded by players who lack the ability to take advantage of his brilliance. You are only as good as your weakest link. I think it would be interesting to discuss the merits of whether one terrible player has more effect on a team than one outstanding player does...

Fort York Redcoat
07-13-2009, 10:39 AM
i agree with Jack. 11 of 14 still in it means fans don't lose hope. That's great for a league that's trying to grow fans. Fans know they can show up and anything can happen. They don't get discouraged.

I dunno about the dynasty model. Personally I never watched baseball or hockey games that weren't by my team anyways (yes, maybe in the playoffs or finals, but not regular season games). I don't sit down and watch Yankees versus Kansas City on an August afternoon because the Yankees are so well known. But one way big teams are made are not just through winning but from media coverage. Some teams get much more media coverage across the country, so people get to know them.

This is how the majority of NA fans are but continuing your example, if you're a big Jays booster and love the game, would you not watch when the Yankees played the biggest baseball teams from the rest of the world to see if anyone could dethrone the biggest basaball team in the world that so happens to play your Jays every year?


Hmmm... supporting a local that would never be top 4.... Well, as a Canadian team, in a climate with runaway spending and a fluctuating dollar, that would sum up Toronto's position quite well. :reddevil::smilewinkgrin:

I guess it could work. I tend to like being in the playoff hunt with a chance. But to each his own I guess. Lots of Jays fans still enjoy a pleasant afternoon eating hot dogs.

Provided of course that the top 4 didn't run themselves into debt trouble. I mean how silly would that be to base the health of your league on 4 teams that had billions in debt. That would be the hallmark of a failed model and surely not a good thing... no?

This is where we differ (which is still allowed by law:)) in that I would sacrifice the off chance that Toronto may struggle not being the biggest city in NA for the betterment of our league's performance worldwide.

I still think we'd be more competitive than most in the league when the support remained but let me say that this model won't be ready for years.

Beach_Red
07-13-2009, 10:47 AM
Your first statement seems it could support a non-parity system (I'm sure that wasn't your inent:)) while the second is great for those fans that appreciate regular season effort- but how many do?


I think we're using the wrong terms, or not explaining them fully. By parity I don't man parity of results, just parity of opportunity.

I guess it's different because it's a closed system. What the NFL has is revenue-sharing because the individual owners agreed that they could generate more income as a group than they could as individuals. So the TV contract is between the league and the networks, not individual teams and the networks.

That's really just accepting the reality that it takes more than one team to have a game and more than a few teams to have a league. Within that system, some teams do far better than others on the field.

What it really does is removes the owners as the key to success and puts it on the management and players.

Yohan
07-13-2009, 11:24 AM
You have made a series of excellent points Old Timer. My concern is whether teams such as New England will continue to be as effective at developing and using talent as they have in the past. I really hope that the reserve league and lost developmental roster spots will return in the future. What's MLS' alternative? The last thing that I want to see is the NFL approach to player retention being used in the MLS. There is so much player turnover in that league, some teams are unrecognizable from season to season. I don't think that it's a wise choice for teams to outsource all player development.


New England is an exception though. Most MLS teams haven't (or just can't) draft well. Superdraft ends up being a crap shoot most of the time anyways, so unless you have a very extensive scouting network (and you gotta be sure you want to spend lots of money scouting NCAA players that aren't going to be superstart quality most likely), building a team through draft is a risky venture.

Speaking of NE, two of their starting defenders are rookies, Alston and Barnes. Barnes being a 3rd rounder.

Fort York Redcoat
07-13-2009, 11:30 AM
I think we're using the wrong terms, or not explaining them fully. By parity I don't man parity of results, just parity of opportunity.

I guess it's different because it's a closed system. What the NFL has is revenue-sharing because the individual owners agreed that they could generate more income as a group than they could as individuals. So the TV contract is between the league and the networks, not individual teams and the networks.

That's really just accepting the reality that it takes more than one team to have a game and more than a few teams to have a league. Within that system, some teams do far better than others on the field.

What it really does is removes the owners as the key to success and puts it on the management and players.

Well we can leave tv revenue sharing out of the question, really since I assume MLS have that in place as does both leagues we're using as models (NFL and EPL). The acceptance of Premiereship teams is that if not for the few giants the league could lose points to the nations coefficient and less teams in UEFA tournaments watched by the country and more. It brings more than prestige to the league to whom the champion team belongs.

mmmikey
07-13-2009, 11:53 AM
ok i didn't read this entire thread but thought i would give some info to counter the "NFL parity means any team wins any year" example being used to support an anti-parity argument.

it's not true. NFL provides the parameters for building your team, etc, and in a way it is similar to MLS. however there are many NFL teams that are consistently mediocre, or consistently contending. this is 99% of the time down to the front office staff and how adept they are at building their franchises and developing talent bases that can survive the inevitable turnover of the playing staff. in a way, it is the FO's that win championships in the NFL. despite having the same rules to live under, some teams are hopelessly devoid of depth and are obviously much shorter on talent than their opponent. it IS possible to form a dynasty in spite of a restrictive system.

but.. at the same time, that hopeless train wreck of a team can still beat any team in the league any given sunday. that's not cause of parity, it's not cause of the salary cap. it's cause sports are played by human beings who when inspired can do amazing things, or laughable things.

salary cap systems don't guarantee boredom and equality, they just put a ceiling on how wide the gap can become between two teams. at that point, its up to the athletes on the field to either close the gap, or make sure the other team doesn't close it on you.

p.s. ppl don't watch other games in MLS cause they aren't on tv! and if they were the presentation of these games are often times much worse than what is done by our own tv crews. it's part of an immature sports market. there will be the occasional exception, such as houston vs seattle on teh weekend. terrific game.

Fort York Redcoat
07-13-2009, 12:09 PM
^Interesting addition putting the onus on the FO.

It brings to mind how I seldom hear about foreign big money players going to a top club and saying how much they like the direction of the organization like so many players do here in NA. I find it a distraction taking away from the game focusing as we do on counts against the cap and draft prospects but that's me.

I don't watch other MLS games and won't. No interest.

Beach_Red
07-13-2009, 12:09 PM
Well we can leave tv revenue sharing out of the question, really since I assume MLS have that in place as does both leagues we're using as models (NFL and EPL). The acceptance of Premiereship teams is that if not for the few giants the league could lose points to the nations coefficient and less teams in UEFA tournaments watched by the country and more. It brings more than prestige to the league to whom the champion team belongs.


I don't know how EPL handle its TV revenue-sharing. I just figured it couldn't be evenly divided between teams or there wouldn't be such a gap in payroll between the top teams and the ones facing relegation. Is it evenly divided?

That's the key for MLS to grow into a bigger league. The tide raises all boats, right? It just takes longer.

And there's a little chicken and egg thing here in North America - in order for there to be significant TV revenue to share, a league has to have strong teams in every region. In order to have strong teams in every region they must share the TV revenue equally.

I still feel the only reason it's different for different leagues is because of how established they were when TV revenue started to be more than gate-receipt revenue (and if owners were willing to put the health of the league ahead of their own self-interest). The NFL is the youngest (between NFL, EPL and baseball) so it got its TV revenue sharing set up for the modern world and the others are stuck with pre-TV models that they're trying to adapt.

Beach_Red
07-13-2009, 12:12 PM
^Interesting addition putting the onus on the FO.

It brings to mind how I seldom hear about foreign big money players going to a top club and saying how much they like the direction of the organization like so many players do here in NA. I find it a distraction taking away from the game focusing as we do on counts against the cap and draft prospects but that's me.

I don't watch other MLS games and won't. No interest.


Addition?!?! On the last page I said, "What it really does is removes the owners as the key to success and puts it on the management and players."

:D

BayernTFC
07-13-2009, 12:19 PM
New England is an exception though. Most MLS teams haven't (or just can't) draft well. Superdraft ends up being a crap shoot most of the time anyways, so unless you have a very extensive scouting network (and you gotta be sure you want to spend lots of money scouting NCAA players that aren't going to be superstart quality most likely), building a team through draft is a risky venture.
Sure, a lot of draft picks don't work out. I think the fact that the SuperDraft is a "crap shoot", means that it is even more important for MLS to have a structure to help develop talent. Even if a drafted player doesn't make the senior squad, that doesn't mean that they can't be useful. If such picks help organizations with the training and development of the players that do eventually make the squad, then are they not worthwhile? Raising the overall quality of development programs leads to improvement in the overall quality of the league. I understand that the league may not be on firm ground and that the budget of some teams may not survive the stretch, but the league is helped even if only some teams have strong development programs. Developmental players or draft picks that some teams give up on can contribute elsewhere. Trades always take place. Surely MLS teams could at least make arrangements with "lower level" leagues to accept developmental players on loan. Houston's Julius James is on loan with the Minnesota Thunder isn't he? At minimum, MLS needs to restore several developmental roster spots to all teams.

Relying solely on draft picks to build your team is unwise. However, MLS needs to use the SuperDraft to supply the league with some players if it is to survive and flourish. Strong developmental programs will improve the quality, as well as the quantity, of the resources teams get from the draft.


Speaking of NE, two of their starting defenders are rookies, Alston and Barnes. Barnes being a 3rd rounder.
It's amazing what some teams can do with later round draft picks. There are those teams who continually sqaunder their early first-round picks, and then there are the Detroit Red Wings, who consistently choose later and succeed. How the Red Wings have managed to turn so many late round picks into starters is astonishing.

To add to your comments, NE also uses Pat Phelan a former TFC first rounder (10th overall) in 2008.

Rudi
07-13-2009, 12:30 PM
I've only read the first page of this thread, but those people lamenting the lack of dynasties need to look a little closer at the situation.

DC United has four MLS Cups and was the de facto first dynasty in the league. The Houston Dynamo, who used to be the San Jose Earthquakes, have won four MLS Cups this decade if you go by the fact that they (and not the current expansion Quakes who have usurped the history) are the team that won the Cup in '01 and '03. And guess where they are in the standings right now?

So yes, while there is forced parity in the league, some coaches/managers have figured out how to be consistently better than the rest.

I'm sorry if this point has already been made, I was too lazy to read the entire thread.

Yohan
07-13-2009, 12:31 PM
Relying solely on draft picks to build your team is unwise. However, MLS needs to use the SuperDraft to supply the league with some players if it is to survive and flourish. Strong developmental programs will improve the quality, as well as the quantity, of the resources teams get from the draft.

The rate in which the league is improving in quality wise and how NCAA doesn't seem to be improving its coaching, it's going to be so in the future that teams will be relying on foreigners, whether they be League One or Championship rejects to maintain quality of their team, not from Superdraft.

It also takes about 3 years for a draft pick to fully bloom into MLS quality players, so on a limited roster, a team has to have a lot of patients on prospects.


It's amazing what some teams can do with later round draft picks. There are those teams who continually sqaunder their early first-round picks, and then there are the Detroit Red Wings, who consistently choose later and succeed. How the Red Wings have managed to turn so many late round picks into starters is astonishing.

To add to your comments, NE also uses Pat Phelan a former TFC first rounder (10th overall) in 2008.
Phelan is only getting a lot of minutes because of injury situation in NE. Otherwise he'd be a bench warmer

Parkdale
07-13-2009, 12:33 PM
Yes. Otherwise it's a modern dynasty.

I want a 'ming dynasty'.

in particular, a ming the merciless dynasty

http://manginamonologues.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/ming-the-merciless.jpg

Shakes McQueen
07-13-2009, 12:34 PM
I want Dynasty Warriors.

- Scott

Yohan
07-13-2009, 12:35 PM
I've only read the first page of this thread, but those people lamenting the lack of dynasties need to look a little closer at the situation.

DC United has four MLS Cups and was the de facto first dynasty in the league. The Houston Dynamo, who used to be the San Jose Earthquakes, have won four MLS Cups this decade if you go by the fact that they (and not the current expansion Quakes who have usurped the history) are the team that won the Cup in '01 and '03. And guess where they are in the standings right now?

So yes, while there is forced parity in the league, some coaches/managers have figured out how to be consistently better than the rest.

I'm sorry if this point has already been made, I was too lazy to read the entire thread.

Past MLS Cup winners and runner ups (13yrs of league existence)

Winners
DC United x4
San Jose x2
Houston x2 (really should be x4 because old Earthquakes moved to Houston to become Dynamo)
LA Galaxy x2
Chicago x1
Kansas City x1
Columbus Crew x1

Runner Ups
New England x4
LA Galaxy x3
Chicago x2
Colorado x1
DC United x1
New York x1
Kansas City x1

Safe to say DC, Houston and LA Galaxy is a 'dynasty', with NE running just short (cuz they haven't won the Cup yet)

romburgundy
07-13-2009, 12:46 PM
Everyone makes really valid point here and we have a great discussion going on this thread!

so umm...

FIRE MO

there.. please continue making sense everyone. Someone had to say it!

Fort York Redcoat
07-13-2009, 12:58 PM
I want a 'ming dynasty'.

in particular, a ming the merciless dynasty

http://manginamonologues.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/ming-the-merciless.jpg

This looks like Battlefield Earth's predecessor.


I want Dynasty Warriors.

- Scott

This we can agree on!:thumbsup: I love that series!

Fort York Redcoat
07-13-2009, 01:00 PM
Safe to say DC, Houston and LA Galaxy is a 'dynasty', with NE running just short (cuz they haven't won the Cup yet)

Yohan gets 3 points for quoting himself.:D

Yohan
07-13-2009, 01:20 PM
Yohan gets 3 points for quoting himself.:D
and a cookie

BayernTFC
07-13-2009, 01:31 PM
The rate in which the league is improving in quality wise and how NCAA doesn't seem to be improving its coaching, it's going to be so in the future that teams will be relying on foreigners, whether they be League One or Championship rejects to maintain quality of their team, not from Superdraft.
That will require more rule changes then, no? Aren't there limits on foreign players for teams? Aren't Americans considered foreign players for TFC? TFC, Vancouver and potentially Montreal will have a very difficult time in MLS if improvements aren't made to the rules over developmental programs/players or more rule changes aren't enacted. Something has got to give either way. MLS will have to increase the cap no matter what, but prepare to increase the cap even further if you want to rely more on foreigners.


It also takes about 3 years for a draft pick to fully bloom into MLS quality players, so on a limited roster, a team has to have a lot of patients on prospects.
All the more reason to at least return to the previous level of developmental roster spots, and to get started now on improving developmental programs. Development of players takes time. Good programs pay for themselves over time, whether it is with additions to line-ups or through transfer fees.



Phelan is only getting a lot of minutes because of injury situation in NE. Otherwise he'd be a bench warmer
Exactly why draft picks are so useful. On top of it all, someone Mo couldn't use is helping out another team in a tough spot. What would our team look like if a few players were to go down? Remeber last year against Chivas when we didn't have 9 players available? Didn't we use a scout and some temporary loans from the USL?

Fort York Redcoat
07-13-2009, 01:34 PM
I don't know how EPL handle its TV revenue-sharing. I just figured it couldn't be evenly divided between teams or there wouldn't be such a gap in payroll between the top teams and the ones facing relegation. Is it evenly divided?

Yup. It is.




And there's a little chicken and egg thing here in North America - in order for there to be significant TV revenue to share, a league has to have strong teams in every region. In order to have strong teams in every region they must share the TV revenue equally.

I still feel the only reason it's different for different leagues is because of how established they were when TV revenue started to be more than gate-receipt revenue (and if owners were willing to put the health of the league ahead of their own self-interest). The NFL is the youngest (between NFL, EPL and baseball) so it got its TV revenue sharing set up for the modern world and the others are stuck with pre-TV models that they're trying to adapt.


Regardless, The NFL model has worked for gridiron but these other NA models are trying to adapt to their particular needs. I'd think that that not relying on TV right now could be an advantage to try alternatives to a model that's dependent on TV coverage we don't have.

Yohan
07-13-2009, 01:54 PM
That will require more rule changes then, no? Aren't there limits on foreign players for teams? Aren't Americans considered foreign players for TFC? TFC, Vancouver and potentially Montreal will have a very difficult time in MLS if improvements aren't made to the rules over developmental programs/players or more rule changes aren't enacted. Something has got to give either way. MLS will have to increase the cap no matter what, but prepare to increase the cap even further if you want to rely more on foreigners.

8 internationals per team, plus TFC gets 5 US player slots. Plus whatever you trade.

http://web.mlsnet.com/about/league.jsp?section=regulations&content=overview

Even with NCAA drafts, a lot of kids dont have a US Green Card, so still ends up being an international.


All the more reason to at least return to the previous level of developmental roster spots, and to get started now on improving developmental programs. Development of players takes time. Good programs pay for themselves over time, whether it is with additions to line-ups or through transfer fees.
agreed. MLS would be stupid to not restart the reserves league because it'll kill development. If I was USSF, I'd be pissed that young prospects aren't getting developed in MLS.

Curiously, I wonder how many teams pick up draft kids, then release them, hoping they'd end up at USL. If they turn up half decent at USL, the MLS team snaps them back up, because they still retain MLS rights for that player.




Exactly why draft picks are so useful. On top of it all, someone Mo couldn't use is helping out another team in a tough spot. What would our team look like if a few players were to go down? Remeber last year against Chivas when we didn't have 9 players available? Didn't we use a scout and some temporary loans from the USL?
that was a freak situation due to international callup, and if MLS ever gets its head out of it's ass, those kind of games will be rescheduled.

not losing players due to injury though. that's just tough shit

Beach_Red
07-13-2009, 02:02 PM
Regardless, The NFL model has worked for gridiron but these other NA models are trying to adapt to their particular needs. I'd think that that not relying on TV right now could be an advantage to try alternatives to a model that's dependent on TV coverage we don't have.

Sure, as long as the TV revenue plan is worked out beforehand (and of course, nothing works it out better than a single-entity league) and is the goal. Relying on gate-receipts will limit how big teams, and the league, can get.

BayernTFC
07-13-2009, 02:35 PM
8 internationals per team, plus TFC gets 5 US player slots. Plus whatever you trade.

http://web.mlsnet.com/about/league.jsp?section=regulations&content=overview

Even with NCAA drafts, a lot of kids dont have a US Green Card, so still ends up being an international.
Those are significant numbers on a 20 man roster with only 4 developmental spots. I do worry though...Philadelphia added in 2010. Portland, Vancouver and maybe Montreal in 2011. It's not like there are a whole lot of extra players on the squads of current teams to help fill out the new members of the gang.


Curiously, I wonder how many teams pick up draft kids, then release them, hoping they'd end up at USL. If they turn up half decent at USL, the MLS team snaps them back up, because they still retain MLS rights for that player.
This is a good question. It would work if the player's USL contract was short. It certainly may be the only option for some teams with only 4 developmental roster spots available.

Yohan
07-13-2009, 02:46 PM
Those are significant numbers on a 20 man roster with only 4 developmental spots. I do worry though...Philadelphia added in 2010. Portland, Vancouver and maybe Montreal in 2011. It's not like there are a whole lot of extra players on the squads of current teams to help fill out the new members of the gang.
If there is 3 new teams for 2011, the expansion draft is going to hurt all the existing teams. Unless there is going to be a retooling of rules to compensate. (IE, make the rosters bigger which is probably going to happen soon. I hope)

But there will be enough decent free agents floating around, so it's not going to hurt the overall talent pool for MLS

BayernTFC
07-13-2009, 03:01 PM
If there is 3 new teams for 2011, the expansion draft is going to hurt all the existing teams. Unless there is going to be a retooling of rules to compensate. (IE, make the rosters bigger which is probably going to happen soon. I hope)
Yet another reason why the recent reduction to the roster size was confusing and shortsighted. MLS needs to make the necessary changes at the end of this season in order to help the current teams, and the league as a whole, prepare for 2011. It's not a lot of time, but it beats the alternative.


But there will be enough decent free agents floating around, so it's not going to hurt the overall talent pool for MLS
I certainly hope that you are right.

Pookie
07-14-2009, 04:49 AM
Sure, as long as the TV revenue plan is worked out beforehand (and of course, nothing works it out better than a single-entity league) and is the goal. Relying on gate-receipts will limit how big teams, and the league, can get.

Well, you'd think so.

The NHL is essentially a gate driven league in many markets south of the border. They've elected to expand their revenue by recognizing that a national TV deal is far fetched so they went about charging more for the same seat. Hence their reliance on corporate sponsorship.

It's a short sighted model. Corporations only buy the tickets because their customers want to go. If you hold back access, eventually you alienate a number of fans who lose interest. If demand drops, corporations think twice about spending.

But you don't even need a drop in demand to spiral into trouble. A simple recession would do it. As would any legislation designed to limit "schmoozing." Ask golf courses and resort desintations about the US crackdown on pharmaceutical industry sales practices. Even the mighty Leafs will see 3 major sponsors leaving the ACC in 2010 and I have it on good authority that another major sponsor is reducing their demand for tickets significantly.

It's short sighted but the danger is that corporate sales fill the pockets quickly and more fully than we do. That can be appealing. Throw in runaway costs and you have a recipe for trouble.

Which is why I really like the fact that this league is being built with some measure of cost controls and revenue sharing.