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' factorOriginally Posted by Super
what Canadian team doesn't want to beat up on Toronto?
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?
“Years have gone by and I’ve finally learned to accept myself for who I am: a beggar for good football.
I go about the world, hand outstretched, and in the stadiums I plead: ‘A pretty move, for the love of God.’
And when good football happens, I give thanks for the miracle and I don’t give a damn which team or country performs it.”
-Eduardo Galeano
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.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.
- Scott
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.
Moderator
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
“Heroism breaks its heart, and idealism its back, on the intransigence of the credulous and the mediocre, manipulated by the cynical and the corrupt.” ~Christopher Hitchens
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.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?
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
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
“Years have gone by and I’ve finally learned to accept myself for who I am: a beggar for good football.
I go about the world, hand outstretched, and in the stadiums I plead: ‘A pretty move, for the love of God.’
And when good football happens, I give thanks for the miracle and I don’t give a damn which team or country performs it.”
-Eduardo Galeano
didn't you pay attention to LA Galaxy season last year?
“Years have gone by and I’ve finally learned to accept myself for who I am: a beggar for good football.
I go about the world, hand outstretched, and in the stadiums I plead: ‘A pretty move, for the love of God.’
And when good football happens, I give thanks for the miracle and I don’t give a damn which team or country performs it.”
-Eduardo Galeano
Moderator
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
“Heroism breaks its heart, and idealism its back, on the intransigence of the credulous and the mediocre, manipulated by the cynical and the corrupt.” ~Christopher Hitchens
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
Last edited by Super; 07-12-2009 at 08:04 PM.
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.
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.
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).
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
“Years have gone by and I’ve finally learned to accept myself for who I am: a beggar for good football.
I go about the world, hand outstretched, and in the stadiums I plead: ‘A pretty move, for the love of God.’
And when good football happens, I give thanks for the miracle and I don’t give a damn which team or country performs it.”
-Eduardo Galeano
You're right about that one.
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.
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.
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."
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 understandA 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
“Years have gone by and I’ve finally learned to accept myself for who I am: a beggar for good football.
I go about the world, hand outstretched, and in the stadiums I plead: ‘A pretty move, for the love of God.’
And when good football happens, I give thanks for the miracle and I don’t give a damn which team or country performs it.”
-Eduardo Galeano
Moderator
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:
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.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.
- Scott
“Heroism breaks its heart, and idealism its back, on the intransigence of the credulous and the mediocre, manipulated by the cynical and the corrupt.” ~Christopher Hitchens
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.
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 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.
Moderator
I agree with this wholeheartedly.
- Scott
“Heroism breaks its heart, and idealism its back, on the intransigence of the credulous and the mediocre, manipulated by the cynical and the corrupt.” ~Christopher Hitchens
http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.c...8020/index.htm
According to MacGregor, Firestone said that the Senators were prepared to pull their goalie to make sure Boston won; that it had been difficult "keeping the restraints" on Bowness over the final weeks of the season; and that Firestone 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 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.http://www.nhlscap.com/draft.htmHe 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 said he had replied, "Sure"—and left it at that.
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.)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.
http://www.answers.com/topic/match-fixingWhen 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.
Last edited by BayernTFC; 07-12-2009 at 09:58 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).
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.
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
.
Last edited by profit89; 07-13-2009 at 07:25 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.
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.
MLS is a tough, physical league, that emphasizes speed, and features plastic fields, grueling travel, extreme weather, and incompetent refs. - NK Toronto
Moderator
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.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.
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
Last edited by Shakes McQueen; 07-13-2009 at 08:27 AM.
“Heroism breaks its heart, and idealism its back, on the intransigence of the credulous and the mediocre, manipulated by the cynical and the corrupt.” ~Christopher Hitchens
Moderator
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
“Heroism breaks its heart, and idealism its back, on the intransigence of the credulous and the mediocre, manipulated by the cynical and the corrupt.” ~Christopher Hitchens
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....
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote