You dont have to call it a pro/rel system if you don't want. As I said, it wouldn't be the same as in Europe. It would be an Americanized version which would allow for 40 teams/cities to be called "MLS," all with a theoretical chance to win the overall championship, but broken into a competitive tiers. MLS needs, for example, a city like Pittsburgh and the 2.5 million people that live within an hour or so to be interested in MLS. If the Riverhounds have a nice new stadium and are part of a world-class MLS with world megastars coming in a few times a year, that would create MLS fans here. MLS needs to involve as many cities as it can.
How to make MLS a top league
- Thread starter Sean Miller Fan
- Start date
You dont have to call it a pro/rel system if you don't want. As I said, it wouldn't be the same as in Europe. It would be an Americanized version which would allow for 40 teams/cities to be called "MLS," all with a theoretical chance to win the overall championship, but broken into a competitive tiers. MLS needs, for example, a city like Pittsburgh and the 2.5 million people that live within an hour or so to be interested in MLS. If the Riverhounds have a nice new stadium and are part of a world-class MLS with world megastars coming in a few times a year, that would create MLS fans here. MLS needs to involve as many cities as it can.
Yes, let's apply it to baseball. Next year the Miami marlins get relegated and the Indianapolis Indians take their place. Since all or nearly all of Indianapolis' players' rights are owned by the Pirates the Indians will enter the off season with literally no players at all on their roster and no minor league organization from which to draw players from. So after they go 30-132 next season they'll be right back where they started.
If you think pro/rel is a good idea for baseball you either have no idea how baseball works or you are the most delusional sports fan on the planet.
It wouldn't work for baseball because there are minor leagues. You'd have to get rid of what we know as minor league baseball and make all those teams independent and that obviously would be a dumb idea. In the US, it could only work for soccer for these reasons:
- MLS desperately needs to create interest in local markets. Why would someone in Milwaukee or Pittsburgh care about MLS if they arent in it? Might as well watch the EPL.
- There is a global supply of players so there would not be much dilution of talent between Team #10 and Team #40.
- For a league that is still in need of more fans, it keeps fans engaged throughout the season. Maybe Chicago is out of the playoff hunt but they dont want to be relegated down to Tier 3 or whatever. It keeps the end of the season interesting
i know, i know. i'm going with the idea that the clubs could be independent operators. i'm under no delusion the whole thing is going to change. i'm just saying that's a sport with defined levels that, in theory, easily adopt a pro/rel solution b/c established levels are already in place.
being honest, college football would be brilliant with pro/rel. never would happen, and the conference situation would hinder it. but can you imagine 20 teams in the top league, etc. would be fantastic theater.
and why not call a spade a spade - charleston southern has zero business playing against FSU. and similar examples. it's simply preposterous to suggest that most d1 schools have anything at all to do with the top 25-ish schools.
There is already a huge disparity in talent between team 10, which is a borderline playoff team, and the bottom team in the league, which right now would be 23 and not 40. San Jose has played 21 games and won all but 19 of them. They won their first game of the season, so that mean that in their most recent 20 games they've won exactly once. They are 2-0 against Minnesota and have not beaten any other team that they have played.
If that's what the bottom of the league looks like now in comparison to the rest of the league then just imagine what happens when you add another 17 teams worse than San Jose to the league. The notion that there wouldn't be much of a difference in talent between the 10th best and the worst team in the league is laughable, at least as dumb as the idea that at some point really soon MLS teams that bring in a total of about $30 million in revenue each year are going to start spending $100 million or more per season on salaries so they can compete with the top three leagues in the world.
being a friend here but maybe check your tone. you're just angry at people in this discussion and it's odd. maybe you're the smartest and most knowledgeable guy in the world. that's great. or maybe approach it likes some pitt guys at a bar sipping beer and having a chat. just a thought.
OK, here's what I mean. West Brom finished 10th in the EPL last season. Reading finished 30 places beneath them as 20th in the Championship. Sure, West Brom is clearly better but the talent gap between WB and Reading is not so great that it would be a miraculous upset if Reading won. The global supply of players plus the nature of the sport of soccer would give an MLS 4th tier team like Pittsburgh a shot against an MLS 1st tier team like say, FC Dallas if a ton of money was invested into MLS to make it a Top 3/4 league.
I'm not angry at anyone. I'm actually laughing at how little some of you guys understand things that you are so ardently posting about. I mean I guess if I was one of the people who was posting some of that stuff I might interpret my laughing at you as being angry (because it beats the alternative, I suppose), but trust me, it's not.
Would you agree that in some form or fashion, MLS needs to have around 40 teams, maybe more in order to maximize fan interest in heavily populated areas? With a more limited supply of players, you risk dilution in the 4 other major team sports in the USA when you go past 30/31. In soccer, even if you do dilute the product some, I feel that whatever that dilution is would be worth it if you can involve several million potential customers who wouldn't give 2 $hits about MLS if it weren't in town.
MLS will need to decide how it wants to prioritize competitive balance (revenue and salary equality between teams), overall quality (high median salaries), and star power (a few outliers per team).
If I were king of the US soccer world, I would accept my place on the food chain and strive for competitive balance and improved overall quality. Goal would be to get the league to a level where the big clubs feel good about loaning out young players and look to sign the leagues’s best youngsters.
To these ends, I would institute a cap to include both transfer fees and salary. I would certainly keep accepting expansion fees. Should enough owners with deep pockets pay in that two divisions were required, so much the better.
I wouldn't accept it. #1 I'd try to get into UEFA somehow. It sounds far-fetched but I believe its worth a shot and its something UEFA would at least consider. The USA is a giant market. Perhaps it can be arranged that all qualifers take place in the Eastern Time Zone. Some teams cross as many time zones to play in the Caucuses. Getting into UEFA solves a ton of problems.
Assuming this isn't possible, I still believe that MLS has to go big in 2026-27. They have a stated goal of being a "league of choice." There will be no better time. They have to take a shot. This isnt an NALS situation. Even if teams spend themselves into bankruptcy, the league could survive it because it is established enough where those team names have enough value to be bought out of bankruptcy like Rangers FC of Glasgow.
Exactly, relegation is for people who aren't like SMF. Like me, I could be an FC Baltimore fan and watch the games with 2000 fans in a small college stadium 3rd division, I don't need to see the best. And if they where promoted to MLS and played in Camden Yards, I'd still be a fan, even when they regress back to D3. Like a Nottingham Forrest fan, they are just fans of the "local team" nor the best quality league. If you want BEST QUALITY, would you quit your team if they dropped to a lower level?
Given that American sports fans balk at the mere notion of ties, I can't imagine them stomaching any variation of relegation.
When you get used to soccer, you don't mind ties, because you realize some ties feel like wins and some feel like losses. The problem I have with the American mentality is the idea that scoring=action, because a 0-0 soccer game can have way more action than an 8-7 baseball game..
it takes 10 minutes to figure it out. hockey has ties. it's fine. you're a crap club but you tie a big club = win. you're a big club and you tie a crap club = loss. simples.
Also, you're leading 1-0 with 2 minutes left and you give up the tying goal, you feel like you lost, the other team celebrates like they just won.
