What would a rel/pro system look like?
by Jeremiah Oshan on Apr 23, 2010 1:41 PM PDT
Email
PrintYou may or may not have noticed the rather long discussion on the front page about Garber's comments regarding relegation/promotion.
Truth be told, the only part of it that I thought was interesting was how a system like that might look if MLS were to ever use it. I'm really not particularly interested in rehashing the general basis for the pros and cons of the idea in general, but am really interested in refining the system.
The best suggestion so far, I think, came from BlakeC:
Hey lets play the what if game
30 teams, 20 in 1st division, 10 in second
2 up and down.All teams are part of SUM and salaries are paid out of the MLS salary pool structure. Teams are allowed to spend above MLS salary pool to improve roster, but that is out of their own funds.
Teams moving up are given a package similar to expansion teams now. Maybe limited expansion draft picks, maybe additional allocation dollars. etc.
New teams will need stadium deals in place that allow them to seat ~17K or greater and at least a few wild projections that show they can meet those numbers.
We increase roster size and pay for it by going from a 30 game season to a 40 game season and playing a balanced schedule. Increased rosters allow mid week games most weeks.
The two of us also came up with some general obstacles that would have to be cleared for this system to work:
1) Relegation can’t be a financial death sentence
2) Parity as we know it in MLS has to die.
3) The second division needs at least a few teams that can carry the water in MLS if brought up.
what else?
by blakec on Apr 23, 2010 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions
More issues
4) How does MLS maintain control
5) What’s the process that new teams must follow
6) What’s the number of teams you need to make this viableBecause if it's not Love | Then it's the bomb ... | That will bring us together
by BayAreaRefugee on Apr 23, 2010 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions
I'll add some of my views on this in the comments, but I'm really looking forward to see what you guys have to say.
FanPosts only represent the opinions of the poster, not of Sounder at Heart.
26 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Some refinements
Rather than focus on 30 as the target number, I think we should focus on the 20 in the top league. if there are 10 teams in the lower league, great. If there are 15, better. If there are 20, awesomest.
Whatever happens, I think they have to all operate under the same broad umbrella. They should all have access to resources like TV money and jersey sales. Obviously, teams in the higher league should get more, but not an egregious amount. Maybe
I would suggest that MLS lower the expansion fee, but allow any ownership group that meets minimum requirements like a stadium and capital to join. Basically, as long as a group is willing to pony up the money and play in the lower league, they can compete.
Teams in the higher league should be allowed to spend beyond the salary cap using a similar system we have now with DPs. I’d suggest allowing maybe five players, instead of three though. (There needs to be a way for the bigger teams to make every attempt to remain in the higher league.)
If you’re going to have this system, I think having it be two teams up and two back works well, as it limits the amount of upheaval.
I’d also get rid of the playoffs, and instead hold the final three rounds of the U.S. Open Cup after the season. Qualifying games would still be played during the regular season, as they are now.
Because if it's not Love | Then it's the bomb ... | That will bring us together
I was thinking the playoffs go
and you play regular season thru November to help accomidate 40 games.
Here's how it works
Phase 1:
MLS buys into all the lower leagues and starts expanding from the bottom. These would be clubs with a very low cost of entry, competing in local level leagues. The idea is to start building up the number of teams around the country. A decently sized metropolitan area should have at least three or four, and a densely populated region should have at least a dozen or so. Everything would be very local for these teams but they’d qualify their way into the USOC, and could face top level competition every once in a while. Eventually the leagues would fill up and there wouldn’t be any more room for expansion at the bottom. That’s when we’d get into…
Phase 2:
Some of the people running these clubs would be better at it than others and therefore those clubs would consistently perform better than the rest. Regional leagues would then be formed from those top teams. This of course, opens up space at the local level and allows more teams to enter the market. Promotion and relegation would be instituted between these leagues and the local leagues from which they arose. In the regional league, there will be teams that separate themselves from the rest and when the regional leagues all fill up, either a higher level of regional league can be added or they can go on to…
Phase 3:
A nationwide lower-level league maybe two steps below MLS, such as USL-2 (which is actually not fully nationwide right now). Just like in the previous phase, there would be promotion and relegation between this league and the regional leagues below it. And again, some teams would show themselves to be better at consistently winning than others, and some teams would lose their way and drop down to the regional leagues. Phase 3 would continue with the addition of the leagues up to MLS. Finally, when those leagues are completely integrated into the system, that will signal the launch of…
Phase 4:
The integration of MLS into this system. Having worked our way all the way up from the bottom, MLS is now brought in and the worst clubs at the end of the season are replaced with the best from the next league down.
The upshot:
At the end, there’s a fully integrated league system from top to bottom. Every place that could conceivably want a soccer team has one, and anyone can start a team at the bottom and try to work their way up. A team failing here or these is not a threat to soccer overall, and the leagues just go on about their business, taking up the next team in line to fill the spot left.
My biggest questions
Would be what kind of timeframe does this require? I’m guessing it needs at least 10-20 years, maybe more. That actually seems like a bonus.
How much money would you think MLS would have to be prepared to make this investment?
Is there any kind of expansion fees involved for promoted teams? I would suggest that there should be.
Because if it's not Love | Then it's the bomb ... | That will bring us together
by Jeremiah Oshan on Apr 24, 2010 8:46 AM PDT up reply actions
It could take even longer
Which is fine. The idea is to build up a supply of teams everywhere and let the cream rise to the top. It’s actually not that weird. It’s what in fact happens in every other sector, but Americans are such communists when it comes to sports that it’s hard to imagine just allowing teams to rise and fall on their merits.
As for the money, the point of growing from the bottom is the outlays are small and the barriers to entry low. Anyone can start a team and try to build it. MLS’s expenses at first would be trivial, mainly just a few staff to help organize the leagues and coordinate the movement between them when that starts up.
I don’t think they should have expansion fees, as such, in a system like that. Instead, at certain levels, you’d have to demonstrate that you’re equipped as an organization to function at that level. So you might have been playing at small stadium with just a few hundred seats when you were at the local level, but by the time you get to the upper levels, you will have to show that you own or have access to a stadium capable of seating at least 15,000. Or you might have to show that you’re going to have the proper facilities to accommodate visiting teams, and so on and so forth. The details will differ, but that ’s the idea. These kinds of requirements exist in other league systems around the world, and if a team finishes in the top spots but is unable to meet the qualifications for the next level, the team below them is brought up, assuming that they can meet those qualifications.
As an owner
I’d be dead set against having competing teams in my market. Unless I’m running them as a farm system, all those teams are taking dollars out of my bottom line. EPL doesn’t have this problem, because they aren’t an owner driven entity. MLS is.
I also don’t see there being enough talent and enough entertainment dollars to go around for a system like this.
I just got back from a Pumas game
I don’t think the $15 or so for a ticket and a snack that didn’t go into the Sounders pocket will destroy the team. As for talent and dollars, I’m looking to do this the slow way so that talent and dollars can be built up over time. Part of the benefit of a wide base of teams is that they’ll be hungry for talent all the time, and therefore constantly looking for ways to find and develop talent.
The owner driven thing is an issue, and the more I think about it, the more I see that this is something that will eventually stunt the development of the league. The teams might improve somewhat in quality, the league will grow, and the owners will make some money, but the teams will always be chained to the lowest common denominator.
Thanks
I like the work, but I think you are missing the biggest thing needed….FANS
IF you have built a stadium to hold 17k minimum, you have invested a lot of money. Now you play in a minor league with no chance of winning it all. How many fans do you draw ?
A rebuilding year in the US says no matter what we can still win it all this year and no strings attached next year.
This says, you rebuild this year and if you win you can have a chance next year.
How many fans do they draw ? Sorry I say dang close to zero, maybe less than Dallas does.
Stadiums in the USA are not private though
A significant difference.
Will Spokane WA fund a 15,000 seat stadium for a team in the 3rd tier just because the owner wants to someday be in the first tier?
Should we really be mimicking a system that has bankrupted teams at a higher rate than the US system? I just read that less in Brazil, while it has “hundreds” of pro-teams less than 10 operate at a profit.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
That's a choice, not a law
Meaning that there’s no requirement for it to be that way, they can make another choice.
If Spokane doesn’t want to build a stadium for that owner, then they won’t. Let him build it himself, if he really wants the team there. If he doesn’t, let him go elsewhere, where maybe he can hoodwink someone else into subsidizing him. With low barriers to entry, there’s nothing stopping someone who is willing to build their own field to start a team in Spokane.
What drives cities building stadiums more than anything is the artificially limited supply imposed by the sports leagues. A city is told if they don’t build a stadium or make improvements to an existing one, the team will leave. That’s nigh well impossible in most systems that include promotion and relegation because the free market nature of the sports leagues allows anyone who feels like it to start a team. The odd case where that has happened are instructive as well. When Wimbledon FC were allowed to move to Milton Keynes, about sixty miles away from Wimbledon, the fans got together and formed AFC Wimbledon, which has been working its way through the semi-pro ranks with the goal of rejoining the professional ranks as soon as possible. They’re almost there, being one promotion away from League Two. If things go really well, they could one day even join the Premiership. If that happens, they’ll have gotten there through superior play, not buying their way in.
Contrast that to what happened with the Sonics. They’re gone, and Seattle basketball fans can do nothing more than seethe about it. If the league deigns at some point, it might decide to allow another franchise here, but who knows if that will ever happen. Wouldn’t it have been better if Oklahoma had been allowed to start its own team whenever it wanted and allow that team to try to earn its way into the top competition, instead of stealing another city’s team?
And as for bankrupt teams, who cares? It’s their own business, if they can’t run it well then it should fail just like any other business. They don’t have an entitlement to profit, they have to earn it. If a movie studio goes out of business because they wasted a huge amount of money making films no one wanted to see, then that’s on them. Similarly, if Portsmouth was run by a bunch of morons, who screwed everything up, then it should suffer the consequences. Business fail all the time, all over the world. The only reason it’s a concern at all in American sports is because the supply is kept artificially constrained.
But the failure of one business withint the system
can and does damage other businesses within the system.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Really? Is Starbucks hurt if Stumptown goes out of business?
Would McDonalds mourn the passing of Burger King? It’s only damaging because the market is repressed and the number of teams kept lower than the market would bear.
Starbucks are hurt if other Starbucks go out of businesses
A LEAGUE demands that a certain number of teams exist at a certain level of competition.
If the soccer market in America is actually repressed at the top flight, why aren’t we seeing dozens of owners joining the lower levels and building stadiums that are better than high school quality?
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Because there's nowhere to go
Start a minor league club and you’ll be minor league forever, with minimal hope of ever moving up. And it’s not just soccer, all the sports leagues are repressed. Why would Oklahoma City need to take from another city if this wasn’t the case?
And somehow leagues around the world are able to scrape together enough teams to play. Maybe it’s because there’s a plentiful supply?
Except that there is no relegation in the nation's most like the USA
Japan, Qatar, Australia are also emerging soccer nations, and while all claim relegation, they don’t actually do it that often as they are still expanding.
I’m still confused why we think that the economics of American soccer are more like the economics of European Soccer than they are the economics of other American sports. What legally and culturally is most similar in America? MLS and the NHL, or MLS and the EPL?
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
I guess it depends on your view of American sports
Yes, from a customer standpoint MLS is much more similar to NHL than to EPL. But a lot of people don’t like what they see from a business standpoint in NHL — hundreds of millions spent on publicly financed and privately profitable arenas, teams being ripped from their ancestral (OK, that’s hyperbolic) homelands, teams that are moved going into bankruptcy, etc. Would relegation fix everything? probably not. But I know that the reason this intrigues me is because while I love most American sports, I see things I wish were different and wonder if there’s a better way. Soccer seems like it would benefit by trying to stand out from its American brethren by trying a different way.
I, for one, would be disappointed if all that came out of promotion/relegation was a cut-and-paste version of the EPL. I’d like to see a uniquely American system that incorporates the best of both systems (European and American).
I want to see this because I think it could potentially be a boon to both MLS and American soccer. For that reason, I don’t think it’s simply a matter of tilting at windmills and is probably why the idea piques the interest of someone like Don Garber.
Because if it's not Love | Then it's the bomb ... | That will bring us together
by Jeremiah Oshan on Apr 24, 2010 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions
What MLS is like now is irrelevant to what I'm proposing
MLS doesn’t come into my proposal for years, maybe even decades. What I’m proposing is to build up the base of the American soccer industry, on the free market principles that are used for almost all other industries in this country. Sure some teams will be better run than others and some of those others will end up going out of business and disappearing, but the idea is to create a broad base of teams and allow the best of those teams to rise.
Only when the base has been solidified from top to bottom does MLS come into the picture, and integrated at the top of the American soccer pyramid.
Gotta use a different example than Spokane
Spokane has a stadium that can hold 26,000. MLS, hello? New market…
Welcome to the Sound Pound...
A stadium that isn't/wasn't good enough for a Tier 4 team
The Spokane Shadow quit using it because it was dangerous.
It is now used for high school football stadiums, but would easily be the worst stadium in the league as soon as it someone tried to use it.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
I hate to point to them
But this is what Portland is doing now. I’m sure PGE isn’t a unique situation. If we didn’t have quest, we could persue Memorial staidum. Salt Lake played out of the college stadium for a few years.
The 17K is just a way of saying, you have to be serious. You can’t be the Railhawks and join with a 6K stadium (they might be 8K). Think of it as a means test for the ownership group. If you can’t do that, it’s unlikely you will be able to spend to compete at the top tier, so go away.
If the revenue continues to grow, I bet you could find groups in cities like Atlanta, Miami and St Louis willing to get the stadium done first and be part of the lower leagues.
Remember, part of the set up was, teams are sharing in the profits from SUM, even if they are in the lower leagues. So, it’s not a situation where they have no income and thus can’t make the payments on a building. Because they are tied to the viability of the league, it will be easier for them to get financing as well (hopefully).
Food for thought
So Duane Rollins at 24th Minute saw the same thing as many of us (Don Garber’s out-of-left field comments) and went through a very similar exercise today.
I think he sells it short by saying very clearly that “this will never happen,” but the underlying principles of his “plan” is intriguing, if nothing else.
In a nutshell, he proposes something very similar to BlakeC with MLS buying the lower league and using that as a closed promotion/relegation platform. He suggests capping MLS1 at 20 teams, and MLS2 at 20 teams. He thinks a five-year waiting period would have to prelude any move (in all fairness to current MLS teams, and specifically expansion teams). He doesn’t get into salary cap issues, but thinks it could all work under single-entity format. Teams would probably fade away and start up with some regularity, but not nearly at the rate you’d have in an truly open system or in the current format.
His big twist comes in the playoffs. In addition to expanding the season to 38 games (too long, I think, especially if you’re going to have playoffs and unnecessary since the playoffs eliminate the “need” for a balanced schedule), he foresees a playoff that features the top two teams from MLS2 competing against the top six from MLS1 with MLS1-1 playing MLS2-2, MLS1-2 playing MLS2-1, MLS1-3 playing MLS1-6, MLS1-4 playing MLS1-5 in the first round and moving on from there. The thinking being that the only way North American fans will support a MLS2-type league is if they believe their boys can ultimately play for the big hardware. Those two MLS2 teams plus the winner of a MLS2 playoff would be promoted with three MLS1 teams getting relegated.
I kinda see his point on the MLS2 teams being allowed to compete. I find the general concept intriguing, though, and think that if this were to happen, his idea has as much promise as anything else.
That said, this feels like one of those compromises where no one is really happy. The people that really like pro/rel concepts are usually more about the pure capitalistic nature of it, I think. They like that teams succeed and are allowed to fail mainly on their own merits, not through the dictates of some system. More importantly, in a truly open system no one team or even group of teams is bigger than the organization since there is always someone waiting to take their place. This idea very much keeps the constraints of the current system in place, just adds an admittedly interesting twist.
I won’t spend much energy pointing out the flaws in this system from a basic “pro/rel just won’t work in US/Canada” POV, as they are consistent with the stuff many others have pointed out here and in other threads.
I do like that people are thinking about the hows and not just the whys of this kind of system. It sparks an interesting debate, I think, and hopefully leads to improvements in our current league.
Because if it's not Love | Then it's the bomb ... | That will bring us together
Can't see a justification for including MLS2 teams in the playoffs
Well, I can’t see a justification for having playoffs to begin with, but it makes no sense to skip over a dozen first division teams to pick up two teams from the second division. That makes what’s bad about playoffs even worse. Instead of a mediocre team sneaking into the playoffs on the last day on goal difference and then winning it all, we’d have the spectacle of a minor league team sneaking in on the last day and maybe winning it all. It’s especially hugely unfair to teams 7 and 8 in MLS1, who had to fight out the season against superior competition, just to watch as a couple of lightweights who have been beating up on crap teams all year long take their places in the playoffs.
Promotion and relegation go hand in hand with the single table/no playoffs concept. Everybody plays the same season, everybody gets exactly the same number of games and exactly the same minutes to do as well as they can, and at the end of the season, you give the team with the most points the trophy and the teams with the fewest the boot. Pure, simple, fair, and uncompromising.
I agree in this sense
If we’re talking about what’s “right” I think single-table definitely works best with promotion/relegation. If we’re talking about how MLS would incorporate such a system, unfortunately, I think something like this is how they’d do it. I really doubt MLS will ever open itself up entirely. And I think the only way they could get a system like this to get the support of enough owners, you’d have to come up with some kind of weird system like this.
I agree that it’s unfair on many levels. It’s probably less unfair if you only allow one MLS2 team into the playoffs. I totally get your point, though. I’m just talking about what may or may not be realistic, and I could see MLS going for something like this. I think it could definitely backfire.
Like I said, this idea is intriguing an interesting because it was one that I had never read before (which I don’t think necessarily means it’s an original idea). I’m less convinced that taken as proposed is better than the current system.
Because if it's not Love | Then it's the bomb ... | That will bring us together
by Jeremiah Oshan on Apr 28, 2010 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions
More food for thought!! Read on and what do you think?
Wrote this originally on Seattle Sounders FC Website a while back!!!
New Professional Soccer Structure for the USA!
Posted by Hutch at 12/12/2009 10:35 PM PST
Take my last post for a new play-off structure for the MLS and throw it in the trash. The professional soccer structure in the States needs a total facelift. To realize the dream of having a relevant professional soccer league, drastic measures must be taken immediately.
1st, the Major League Soccer needs to be the top tier of Professional Soccer in America. Hence known as MLS1. Second, have two more Leagues being known as MLS2 and MLS3. Keep the MISL, but have the season played during the months of November, December and January. MLS1 players with less than 1000 minutes played in the MLS1 regular season along with all MLS2 and MLS3 players eligible to play in the MISL. Think of it as a farm system like Baseball’s Minor Leagues and the NBA’s Development League.
MLS1 will have 18 teams playing every team twice consisting of 34 games in one table. No play-offs whatsoever. The bottom team in the table will be relegated to MLS2. The next two lowest teams will play a home and home to determine who will also be relegated. The MLS1 Champion will be the team with the highest total points at the end of the year.
MLS2 will have no more than 16 teams playing every team twice consisting of no more than 30 games. This is where its gets interesting! The MLS2 Champion is automatically promoted to the MLS1. The next four teams will have a play-off to determine who is promoted to the MLS1. Seed 2 vs. seed 5 and seed 3 vs. seed 4 will play a home and home to determine who plays in the Promotion match. The higher seed gets the home game. The winner gets the honor of playing in the MLS1 the following year. Since there is 4 less games in the MLS2 compared to MLS1, these extra weeks could be used for the Promotion Play-offs. Relegation will be the same as MLS1.
MLS3 will have no more than 14 teams playing every team twice consisting of no more than 28 games. Same promotion rules as the MLS2.
This is the Fun part.
Keep the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup as it is. This allow amateur teams to compete with the MLS1, MLS2, and MLS3 teams in a tournament.
However add a U.S. Professional Cup consisting of the top 4 MLS1 teams and the Champions of the MLS2 and MLS3 teams of the previous year.
1st Round: The MLS1 top 2 teams receive a bye. MLS1’s 3rd team vs. MLS3 Champions and MLS1’s 4th team vs. MLS2 Champions. The MLS1 teams get the home game.
2nd Round: The MLS1 Champions get the lowest seed team. The MLS’s 2nd team gets who is left. Home and Home with the MLS1 top two teams getting the 2nd game.
Finals: The Higher seeded team left gets the home game.
The First Round could be played two weeks before the MLS1 regular season Playing it on Tuesday.
The Second Round would be played on the Following Saturday and Tuesday.
The Final would be played on the Following Saturday or Sunday.
The U.S. Professional Cup would be finished before the MLS1 regular season starts, and would be a good warmup for the MLS1 teams that are in it.
This Cup would be a compromise between those who are for and against a play-off for the MLS1.
Some great names for the Cup could be the Dick’s Sporting Goods U.S. Professional Cup, XBOX U.S. Professional Cup or name it after a prominent U.S. Soccer figure.
Now on to the Major Indoor Soccer League. Like I said earlier have it set up so players with limited playing time in the MLS1 regular season can use it to fine tune their skills. It can be used as a chance for MLS1 teams to scout MLS2 and MLS3 players. Have play in the MLS off season so these players will be ready for the beginning of the MLS season.
Final note: Get rid of the Salary Cap and MLS’s draconian transfer rules. Allow teams to pick up any players they choose, have their own youth academies. The draft system doesn’t work in soccer,so get rid of it. If Soccer in America wants to be seen as an equal in the rest of the Soccer/football/futbol world these drastic measure need to be implemented immediately. This idea was not originally mine. Somewhere on ESPNSOCCERNET someone came up with the original idea, and unfortunately I can’t remember. I just fine tuned it to my ideal Professional Soccer Structure for the good ole USofA.
Please let me know what you think, and tweak it as you would have it!!!!!
PHutch
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
