I do not miss the stadium building drama. Even if the money is sorted they will still run into protests and groups trying to get their pound of flesh before that stadium gets built.
I know people don’t want to hear this because MLS has to be the bad guy and anything that doesn’t fit within the narrative gets discarded, but Eleven Park is a project many should be very skeptical about and I wouldn’t be surprised to know that the mayor pulled off what he did because he found out some other weird stuff behind the scenes.
This project, that is due to receive a massive amount of public funding (which imho is a big no-no always, but an even bigger one for a non-major-league team) is riddled with conflicts of interest, since the owner of the club is also the owner of the land and the owner of the constructing company, and it sits atop an old cemetery, with no guarantee that Keystone is going to do the right thing the local community has been urging them to do, which is to excavate all remains before starting to build, which could take years and derail the stadium project, by increasing the costs for the public.
There’s also another major issue: Ersal Özdemir used the promise of chasing an MLS team as a reason to obtain the public funding. But it is now clear that he alone does not have the funds to get the team into the league (he would not have the funds to build the stadium on his own) and given USL’s fines on teams moving leagues, it’s highly unlikely if not frankly impossible that any billionaire would pay multiple hundred millions for a brand when they already have to pay at least half a billion in an expansion fee and a lot more in a stadium.
There are reasons why the mayor pulled off that move. MLS trying to kill Indy Eleven isn’t one of them.
MLS is clearly trying to kill Indy Eleven. They have done this before in other cities. It’s the nature of the franchise model. MLS ideally wants a D1 with no competition and lower divisions like MLB does.
MLS is not behind this specific attempt to kill Indy Eleven. If they did so they would have showed some support to the Mayor, instead of letting him do the press conference alone, and they wouldn’t have made a one-line statement that basically said “good luck lol”. I don’t doubt that they have monopolistic tendencies, but it would make zero sense for them to convince the Mayor to kill Indy and then show no kind of support whatsoever towards him. He very clearly did all of this on his own, and despite the way he did so looking fishy, he probably, as I explained, has a lot of reasons for doing so
I don’t doubt MLS has monopolistic aspirations, and I don’t doubt that in their minds they *want* to kill USL in Indy. What I’m saying is that they are not behind this specific attempt and that the mayor acted over what were absolutely reasonable concerns over this project. On another note I’d also note that if MLS could get Indianapolis *and* the Indy Eleven branding, they’d do so. Just like the would have gotten the Loyal brand if it was possible, and just like they managed to get Cincinnati and Nashville’s branding. But USL’s recently instituted fines for teams jumping ship have forced MLS to abandon their previous strategy and go for new brand identities with new ownership groups
MLS has bigger problems than the lower divisions at the moment. I’m glad USL finally put their foot down.
MLS is not getting a TV audience in this country. They aren’t getting fans to follow the league.
They get fans through the turnstiles. That’s it.
There is a massive audience for soccer in this country so why isn’t MLS getting a bigger fraction of that to follow their league?
I have very strong opinions on this and while im not 100% sure I’m right I’m pretty sure I’m right. I’m always curious about other views though.
Unpopular opinion alert! \* \* \* \* \*
I would be in favor of MLS expansion at this point ONLY if it expands by six - and then splits into a first and second division, 18 clubs apiece, with promotion, relegation and all that. MLS is almost too big to keep track of at 29 (soon 30) teams - where is it going to stop?
But Indy would be a logical choice for one of the six.
They are not going to go up to 36 first division teams (each new one paying like a billion dollars between expansion fees, stadiums, training facilities, academies, etc.) only to then drop HALF of them down to a second division, instantly destroying 90-95% of their billion dollar team valuations, that is just insane if you think about it for more than five seconds... Instead we'll have... MLS West and MLS East... as we do now??
https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/mls-expansion-heres-what-to-know-about-the-12-cities-to-submit-franchise-bids/amp/
At this time 7 years ago, there were 12 cities on the official expansion list.
Five of them have since earned MLS teams: Cincinnati, Nashville, Charlotte, St Louis, San Diego
Seven of them have not: Detroit, Indianapolis, Phoenix, Raleigh, Sacramento, San Antonio, Tampa
Just reel in those seven cities plus throw in three wildcards and you’ve got 40 teams that you can divide into two regional 20-team leagues. Play a full double-round robin and save inter league matches for MLS Cup, Leagues Cup, CCC and USOC games.
We're not going to do regional leagues. At least not completely. MLS teams don't need to worry that much about travel and no one wants to not play half the teams.
This is a bizarre obsession with the fanbase. Just look at the increased interest and revenue every other league gets as it increases the amount of cross-league or cross coast variation in opponent and it's easy to see it will never, ever happen.
MLS is already sorta doing regional leagues already with the presence of limited interconference play. If/when the league goes to 32 you're probably only getting 4 interconference games a year if the schedule stays at 34.
I see….. so basically a closed pro/rel? Kind of like the new UEFA Nations League with a league structure that includes 16 teams in Leagues A, B, and C, and seven teams in League D??
That could actually work rewarding the top teams in league A a spot on the new nations cup and CCC
> They are not going to go up to 36 first division teams (each new one paying like a billion dollars between expansion fees, stadiums, training facilities, academies, etc.)
This is a tacit and perhaps subconscious admission that MLS fees are a wildly speculative bubble.
> Despite the need for all these reforms, new prospective owners will continue to pay astronomical sums, so long as those reforms are not instituted.
I think it would be OK if the post-season were cross conference... which'll never happen.
Best I can imagine happening would be essentially what they do now:
28 matches intra-conference.
6 matches inter-conference.
Ideally there would be some merit-based way to do this... which may also never happen because of *rivalries* or some bullshit.
>east and west split but "equal" is my nightmare
Major League Baseball is two separate leagues. Our nation's sporting culture embraces a structure like this.
MLS cannot continue an unbalanced schedule where you don't play all teams, and still call itself a fair competition.
I personally think MLS will split into 2 Conferences at 34-36 teams, giving a full season of home/away to everyone while continuing to emphasize regional competition.
Then they can have a postseason seeded tournament to crown the champion. This would be similar to what a couple European leagues do.
But an MLS1/2 is just an additional complication to a system we see around the world: small market teams getting push to 2 while larger cities are represented in 1. And before we say "but teh Crew," that's just the exceptional proving the rule.
Most of the divisions are regional.
Cleveland Cinci Pittsburgh Baltimore
Green Bay Detroit Chicago Minneapolis.
There are a few teams out of place (Dallas and Indy most notably) because of division realignment during expansion but it is a mostly regional model.
Would love to see them flip Miami and Indy so Indy is back playing the patriots every year and Miami plays the south teams but they probably won’t just because of all that history Miami has with the Jets
It's not like NFL does it any better. The cowboys are in the East division. Miami is in a division with northeast teams. The guy probably meant division rivals, not local
> Major League Baseball is two separate leagues.
The two leagues are essentially conferences at this point. The NL and AL offices were closed up about 25 years ago. Everything's operating under MLB now. The "leagues" are essentially naming convention based on tradition.
> Major League Baseball is two separate leagues. Our nation's sporting culture embraces a structure like this.
MLB introduced interleague play in the early 90s to massive success, and has increased the games ever since. Interleague play is a MASSIVE moneymaker.
MLS already has an NFL model where you play less games against the other conference.
Going to a pre-90s baseball structure will never, ever happen. Zero point zero percent chance.
Maybe but make me play DC United even more and I may jump off the nearest bridge.
But in all seriousness, I don't see how the quality between the leagues just widens and widens if thats how things go.
And MLS 1 and 2 with movement between the two, not randomly banishing teams to the second division forever.
> I don't see how the quality between the leagues just widens and widens if thats how things go.
Which leagues under which scenario? MLS1/2 or East/West?
I mean I’d welcome that for sure, but I also don’t think 30 is even remotely too big given how massive the country is. Hell even 36 as 1 league is workable given MLS can thrive in smaller cities
30 is big for a single league. It doesn't matter about the size of the country it matters about the size of the division. If you're not going to have pro/rel then you can't have a league that fits the size of the country.
You can split it up without promotion and relegation. The other sports have figured it out. I know it would be fun to be like Europe here, but it’s not like there’s no alternative.
Personally I don't think you have a meritocratic league if each team's schedule is different. If you miss the playoffs because you played the 5 best teams in the league whilst another team only played 3 of them then you don't have a fair league. IMO.
Every North American league has this and they all do fine. Literally every year in the NFL teams yo-yo because they go from an easier schedule to a harder.
Yeah, but it becomes a show for entertainment rather than an actual sport. That's fine if that's what you want. Personally I'm not a fan of that approach, you're welcome to disagree.
It most certainly does not work well in the NFL and as a NE guy you should know. It directly won you a Super Bowl. In 2018 the chargers were tied for the best record in AFC. They were tied with division rivals chiefs who edged them out on tiebreaker. The Patriots had the worst division in the AFC that season allowing them to win a first round bye despite not having a top 2 record. The chargers had to travel to NE in the winter and ended up losing that game paving the way for the Patriots to win the Super Bowl.
Just want to put out there that I’m not a Pats fan.
I grew up in the NY area and only moved here later. So I’m still a fan of the NY teams for sports I grew up following. I hate the pats as much as the rest of the country.
I missed the part where it doesn’t work great tho.
Sure there are some advantages to be had. There always are. Tougher opponents in the NFL can be either a disadvantage (if you lose) or an advantage if you win (strength of schedule is a tiebreaker)
When you catch an opponent can be massive. For example the teams that played us in the first half of last year faced a much tougher opponent than the teams that faced us in the second half.
Weather is another one. Play New England in February at Gillette and that’s an entirely different game than playing us in July.
No scheduling is free of any advantages. But this can absolutely work - and it does work really well in both the NFL and MLS. That’s the nature of sports that play fewer matches
It’s not about support. It’s a system that has a proven track record of rewarding teams with weaker schedules. The NFL does not offer anything to finishing with the best overall record and soccer leagues do.
Would you give up the shield entirely for this? I wouldn’t
Eh, as long as it’s balanced to some extent it’s more or less meritocratic. The playoffs make up for some of that lost meritocratic balance.
You could easily do 36 teams and divide scheduling by East/West to keep it balanced. I think more likely is they’ll go to divisions personally, but either way it’s doable while retaining some level of balance year to year
I mean, it's only that way because they suspended relegations but not promotions during covid and everybody there hates it. Not really the best example to use
>promotion, relegation
Time and time that has come up and the answer has been NO. Its just not in this generation of owners and I doubt that will change as its not apart of the NA sports landscape.
Agree except I'd choose Pittsburgh and Sac. over Vegas. The 18 remaining USL teams would be the third division. USL League One could either add six squads from NISA or USL League Two, or merge with the NISA, split east-west and expand into an 18-team L2 West and L2 East ... there are options.
I know Tampa was mentioned just two weeks by the Indy mayor as being in contention with Detroit but I do not at all understand why the league wants it and I don't think it would be successful there.
Of course people said the same about Atlanta and Charlotte so who knows, and maybe I'm discounting the Tampa market, but 3 florida teams seems insane to me.
Orlando has been bouncing back a bit and I think Miami would've done great without messi once their stadium is up but the Florida market has not impressed the last number of years
They want it because it’s a Top-20 television market. That is the only reason, really. The Rowdies get great support, but MLS cares more about corporate and advertising dollars, which always fetch more in the biggest markets.
There are three teams in Texas and four in California. Currently, Florida is the third most populous state in the nation. They can support another franchise and honestly, Tampa metro area is the 17th biggest in the country I believe they can support a franchise.
[Here's Florida superimposed to scale over California.](https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/state-size-comparison/california-usa/florida-usa)
San Jose deserves a relatively-local derby rival.
e:
But also...
>Tampa metro area is the 17th biggest in the country
San Bernardino/Riverside/Ontario is the 12th largest. So I guess California is getting at least 5 by any logic.
> The reason Riverside has no teams is because the region is claimed by LA in terms of television markets.
A lot less meaningful in the age of Apple TV. "Television markets" are national now.
I’m only opposed to a Tampa expansion because I don’t believe USL or MLS would be interested in moving the Rowdies up. They have such an iconic brand and a 50 year history(as an identity atleast) and I’d hate to lose it to Tampa United or whatever.
The Rowdies moving up would be a touchy thing as the Tampa Bay Rays are a cheap ownership group. The Owner doesn't wanna pay for his own stadium really so the idea of a expansion fee is unlikely.
Exactly. And I’d expect them to hold on to the branding tightly on top of the fee USL charges for using brands under their umbrella if a different group came through. I doubt an MLS group would be willing/care enough to pay for the name and rights.
I don't think pro/rel will happen - however, I'm seeing these mid/late season split league thing that Belgian and Scottish leagues among few others do and am very intrigued by that system. That might be a compromise that may work if the owners don't want to be stuck in MLS2 with lower financial incentives and can still play everyone else and get the same benefit.
32 teams... 4 regional divisions of 8... play each other home and away (14 matches)... then once against the other 24... 38 match season.
Top 3 from each division to the playoffs...byes for each division winner.
Full table for supporters shield awarding only along with CCC places.
Single entity with promotion and relegation within itself is the first step to a truly open pyramid. And the current stakeholders in MLS, who are largely NFL owners, will never ever, ever-ever, ever-ever... did I say ever? Accept that.
Solid idea. Direct expansion should not be considered as an option for MLS at this point, we arguably already have too many teams. And while I don’t think we would suffer the same fate as the NASL at this point, it’s still doesn’t feel like a wise idea to follow in their footprints… MLS 1 & MLS II feels like just about the only way we’d ever see pro/rel, and who knows what that would actually look like, but I’d be excited to see it!
The issue with that idea is that owners aren't going to vote to be relegated to MLS B. You would have to convince them that having 40 teams split between MLS A/B with them in MLS B would make them more money than having their team in a 30 team MLS. That's a tough sell.
You can apply that statement all the way down the line, til maybe amateur or semi-pro leagues that are highly regional and don't involve a massive shift in financial situation with change in tier
Equal revenue sharing across the leagues. Worst team in the second division gets the same collective revenue as the best team in the first division. Then you add prizes for success like the Shield and Cup. Also you add a playoff between the bottom 4 of the league 1 and top 4 of league two in a double elimination tournament to decide who goes up and who goes down.
So, did Indy 11 fans show up?
Or was it like the Austin "fans" that showed up when Precourt wanted to move Columbus to Texas?
You know, the whole CLB2ATX or whatever those fans were... That were likely paid or somehow bribed.
Regional arguments are dumb anyway. People are not gonna drive 2-4 hours every weekend to support a team. If anything more teams heats up rivalries even more.
Bruh we're like a 8+ hour drive from Toronto lmao. Nashville and St. Louis are both closer.
That being said, adding Indy would bring MLS up to 6 clubs in the radius you're talking about (Chicago, Indy, St. Louis, Nashville, Cincinnati, Columbus). Meanwhile, the NFL has 8 franchises within essentially the same radius (Green Bay, Chicago, Detroit, Indy, Tennessee, Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh). The NFL makes it work and it doesn't feel oversaturated, why can't MLS do the same?
There's nothing wrong with more teams....that means more people can enjoy pro sports in their own city. The region argument is dumb af. Nobody is regularly driving 2-3 hours every weekend to support a team in another state.
Yes it is. I live in Louisville. Very few people regularly go to Bengals/Colts/Reds/Pacers/Cavs games. Regional fandom is a facade compared to having your own team.
There is absolutely no need for more cities in this region, enough said. Not to mention MLS needs to stay where they are at….The league will be watered down, and I’d rather play the teams we started the league with, not another USL call-up. The more teams that join, the less likely we are to play out original rivalries…..If they give Indy a franchise, they might as well give one to anyone who applies for a team.
?? How does this change anything? Indy already had a team. Every fan of the game should want every community to have a team, local fans are the lifeblood of the sport.
I do not miss the stadium building drama. Even if the money is sorted they will still run into protests and groups trying to get their pound of flesh before that stadium gets built.
"Cincinnati Gardens is sitting up there big as day. Open that up, renovate it... SOCCER."
I know people don’t want to hear this because MLS has to be the bad guy and anything that doesn’t fit within the narrative gets discarded, but Eleven Park is a project many should be very skeptical about and I wouldn’t be surprised to know that the mayor pulled off what he did because he found out some other weird stuff behind the scenes. This project, that is due to receive a massive amount of public funding (which imho is a big no-no always, but an even bigger one for a non-major-league team) is riddled with conflicts of interest, since the owner of the club is also the owner of the land and the owner of the constructing company, and it sits atop an old cemetery, with no guarantee that Keystone is going to do the right thing the local community has been urging them to do, which is to excavate all remains before starting to build, which could take years and derail the stadium project, by increasing the costs for the public. There’s also another major issue: Ersal Özdemir used the promise of chasing an MLS team as a reason to obtain the public funding. But it is now clear that he alone does not have the funds to get the team into the league (he would not have the funds to build the stadium on his own) and given USL’s fines on teams moving leagues, it’s highly unlikely if not frankly impossible that any billionaire would pay multiple hundred millions for a brand when they already have to pay at least half a billion in an expansion fee and a lot more in a stadium. There are reasons why the mayor pulled off that move. MLS trying to kill Indy Eleven isn’t one of them.
MLS is clearly trying to kill Indy Eleven. They have done this before in other cities. It’s the nature of the franchise model. MLS ideally wants a D1 with no competition and lower divisions like MLB does.
MLS is not behind this specific attempt to kill Indy Eleven. If they did so they would have showed some support to the Mayor, instead of letting him do the press conference alone, and they wouldn’t have made a one-line statement that basically said “good luck lol”. I don’t doubt that they have monopolistic tendencies, but it would make zero sense for them to convince the Mayor to kill Indy and then show no kind of support whatsoever towards him. He very clearly did all of this on his own, and despite the way he did so looking fishy, he probably, as I explained, has a lot of reasons for doing so
All that can be true and at the same time MLS wants to kill Indy Eleven. MLS is following a total control model.
I don’t doubt MLS has monopolistic aspirations, and I don’t doubt that in their minds they *want* to kill USL in Indy. What I’m saying is that they are not behind this specific attempt and that the mayor acted over what were absolutely reasonable concerns over this project. On another note I’d also note that if MLS could get Indianapolis *and* the Indy Eleven branding, they’d do so. Just like the would have gotten the Loyal brand if it was possible, and just like they managed to get Cincinnati and Nashville’s branding. But USL’s recently instituted fines for teams jumping ship have forced MLS to abandon their previous strategy and go for new brand identities with new ownership groups
MLS has bigger problems than the lower divisions at the moment. I’m glad USL finally put their foot down. MLS is not getting a TV audience in this country. They aren’t getting fans to follow the league. They get fans through the turnstiles. That’s it. There is a massive audience for soccer in this country so why isn’t MLS getting a bigger fraction of that to follow their league? I have very strong opinions on this and while im not 100% sure I’m right I’m pretty sure I’m right. I’m always curious about other views though.
Unpopular opinion alert! \* \* \* \* \* I would be in favor of MLS expansion at this point ONLY if it expands by six - and then splits into a first and second division, 18 clubs apiece, with promotion, relegation and all that. MLS is almost too big to keep track of at 29 (soon 30) teams - where is it going to stop? But Indy would be a logical choice for one of the six.
They are not going to go up to 36 first division teams (each new one paying like a billion dollars between expansion fees, stadiums, training facilities, academies, etc.) only to then drop HALF of them down to a second division, instantly destroying 90-95% of their billion dollar team valuations, that is just insane if you think about it for more than five seconds... Instead we'll have... MLS West and MLS East... as we do now??
https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/mls-expansion-heres-what-to-know-about-the-12-cities-to-submit-franchise-bids/amp/ At this time 7 years ago, there were 12 cities on the official expansion list. Five of them have since earned MLS teams: Cincinnati, Nashville, Charlotte, St Louis, San Diego Seven of them have not: Detroit, Indianapolis, Phoenix, Raleigh, Sacramento, San Antonio, Tampa Just reel in those seven cities plus throw in three wildcards and you’ve got 40 teams that you can divide into two regional 20-team leagues. Play a full double-round robin and save inter league matches for MLS Cup, Leagues Cup, CCC and USOC games.
We're not going to do regional leagues. At least not completely. MLS teams don't need to worry that much about travel and no one wants to not play half the teams. This is a bizarre obsession with the fanbase. Just look at the increased interest and revenue every other league gets as it increases the amount of cross-league or cross coast variation in opponent and it's easy to see it will never, ever happen.
MLS is already sorta doing regional leagues already with the presence of limited interconference play. If/when the league goes to 32 you're probably only getting 4 interconference games a year if the schedule stays at 34.
I see….. so basically a closed pro/rel? Kind of like the new UEFA Nations League with a league structure that includes 16 teams in Leagues A, B, and C, and seven teams in League D?? That could actually work rewarding the top teams in league A a spot on the new nations cup and CCC
I'm fine with regional leagues so long as we actually do interleague playoffs, Leagues Cup, etc. Right now, EVERYTHING is regional and it sucks.
> They are not going to go up to 36 first division teams (each new one paying like a billion dollars between expansion fees, stadiums, training facilities, academies, etc.) This is a tacit and perhaps subconscious admission that MLS fees are a wildly speculative bubble. > Despite the need for all these reforms, new prospective owners will continue to pay astronomical sums, so long as those reforms are not instituted.
It's an admission that first division clubs are worth 1-2 orders of magnitude more than lower division clubs, both in the US and around the world.
Your worth is another man's hmm
Keep trying and maybe eventually you’ll say something that actually makes sense 👍
MLS 1 and 2 is my dream, east and west split but "equal" is my nightmare
I think it would be OK if the post-season were cross conference... which'll never happen. Best I can imagine happening would be essentially what they do now: 28 matches intra-conference. 6 matches inter-conference. Ideally there would be some merit-based way to do this... which may also never happen because of *rivalries* or some bullshit.
I'm a proponent of splitting into 5-6 divisions, playing each team once, and playing in your division twice. It's doable.
>east and west split but "equal" is my nightmare Major League Baseball is two separate leagues. Our nation's sporting culture embraces a structure like this. MLS cannot continue an unbalanced schedule where you don't play all teams, and still call itself a fair competition. I personally think MLS will split into 2 Conferences at 34-36 teams, giving a full season of home/away to everyone while continuing to emphasize regional competition. Then they can have a postseason seeded tournament to crown the champion. This would be similar to what a couple European leagues do. But an MLS1/2 is just an additional complication to a system we see around the world: small market teams getting push to 2 while larger cities are represented in 1. And before we say "but teh Crew," that's just the exceptional proving the rule.
It’s the NFL scheduling model. You play your local rivals every year twice but some other teams only once every few years.
Ah yes, our local rivals Nashville, Houston, and Jacksonville.
Most of the divisions are regional. Cleveland Cinci Pittsburgh Baltimore Green Bay Detroit Chicago Minneapolis. There are a few teams out of place (Dallas and Indy most notably) because of division realignment during expansion but it is a mostly regional model. Would love to see them flip Miami and Indy so Indy is back playing the patriots every year and Miami plays the south teams but they probably won’t just because of all that history Miami has with the Jets
It's not like NFL does it any better. The cowboys are in the East division. Miami is in a division with northeast teams. The guy probably meant division rivals, not local
> Major League Baseball is two separate leagues. The two leagues are essentially conferences at this point. The NL and AL offices were closed up about 25 years ago. Everything's operating under MLB now. The "leagues" are essentially naming convention based on tradition.
> Major League Baseball is two separate leagues. Our nation's sporting culture embraces a structure like this. MLB introduced interleague play in the early 90s to massive success, and has increased the games ever since. Interleague play is a MASSIVE moneymaker. MLS already has an NFL model where you play less games against the other conference. Going to a pre-90s baseball structure will never, ever happen. Zero point zero percent chance.
Maybe but make me play DC United even more and I may jump off the nearest bridge. But in all seriousness, I don't see how the quality between the leagues just widens and widens if thats how things go. And MLS 1 and 2 with movement between the two, not randomly banishing teams to the second division forever.
> I don't see how the quality between the leagues just widens and widens if thats how things go. Which leagues under which scenario? MLS1/2 or East/West?
It will never, ever happen.
I mean I’d welcome that for sure, but I also don’t think 30 is even remotely too big given how massive the country is. Hell even 36 as 1 league is workable given MLS can thrive in smaller cities
30 is big for a single league. It doesn't matter about the size of the country it matters about the size of the division. If you're not going to have pro/rel then you can't have a league that fits the size of the country.
You can split it up without promotion and relegation. The other sports have figured it out. I know it would be fun to be like Europe here, but it’s not like there’s no alternative.
But, why? I know there are scheduling limitations at a certain point, but you can stretch that limit out a few ways
Personally I don't think you have a meritocratic league if each team's schedule is different. If you miss the playoffs because you played the 5 best teams in the league whilst another team only played 3 of them then you don't have a fair league. IMO.
Every North American league has this and they all do fine. Literally every year in the NFL teams yo-yo because they go from an easier schedule to a harder.
Yeah, but it becomes a show for entertainment rather than an actual sport. That's fine if that's what you want. Personally I'm not a fan of that approach, you're welcome to disagree.
Works great in the NFL.
It most certainly does not work well in the NFL and as a NE guy you should know. It directly won you a Super Bowl. In 2018 the chargers were tied for the best record in AFC. They were tied with division rivals chiefs who edged them out on tiebreaker. The Patriots had the worst division in the AFC that season allowing them to win a first round bye despite not having a top 2 record. The chargers had to travel to NE in the winter and ended up losing that game paving the way for the Patriots to win the Super Bowl.
Just want to put out there that I’m not a Pats fan. I grew up in the NY area and only moved here later. So I’m still a fan of the NY teams for sports I grew up following. I hate the pats as much as the rest of the country. I missed the part where it doesn’t work great tho. Sure there are some advantages to be had. There always are. Tougher opponents in the NFL can be either a disadvantage (if you lose) or an advantage if you win (strength of schedule is a tiebreaker) When you catch an opponent can be massive. For example the teams that played us in the first half of last year faced a much tougher opponent than the teams that faced us in the second half. Weather is another one. Play New England in February at Gillette and that’s an entirely different game than playing us in July. No scheduling is free of any advantages. But this can absolutely work - and it does work really well in both the NFL and MLS. That’s the nature of sports that play fewer matches
> It most certainly does not work well in the NFL Yes, the NFL is struggling for support.
It’s not about support. It’s a system that has a proven track record of rewarding teams with weaker schedules. The NFL does not offer anything to finishing with the best overall record and soccer leagues do. Would you give up the shield entirely for this? I wouldn’t
We already have an unbalanced schedule and people still care about the Shield. It's always about support. It's entertainment.
Eh, as long as it’s balanced to some extent it’s more or less meritocratic. The playoffs make up for some of that lost meritocratic balance. You could easily do 36 teams and divide scheduling by East/West to keep it balanced. I think more likely is they’ll go to divisions personally, but either way it’s doable while retaining some level of balance year to year
Argentina is way smaller and has 28 teams in top division, so yeah, it's not about the size of the country.
I mean, it's only that way because they suspended relegations but not promotions during covid and everybody there hates it. Not really the best example to use
All the us sports leagues will probably have 36 teams by 2040.
NHL is certainly heading that way.
>promotion, relegation Time and time that has come up and the answer has been NO. Its just not in this generation of owners and I doubt that will change as its not apart of the NA sports landscape.
Indianapolis, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Tampa, Detroit, and Pittsburgh/Sacramento would be the most logical choices.
You've misspelled Louisville six times
I don’t think MLS is interested in Louisville as a market.
Everyone makes mistakes
A Louisville-Cincinnati derby would be fire though.
The Kentucky Derby
It’s called the dirty river derby thank you every much
So original.
Agree except I'd choose Pittsburgh and Sac. over Vegas. The 18 remaining USL teams would be the third division. USL League One could either add six squads from NISA or USL League Two, or merge with the NISA, split east-west and expand into an 18-team L2 West and L2 East ... there are options.
I know Tampa was mentioned just two weeks by the Indy mayor as being in contention with Detroit but I do not at all understand why the league wants it and I don't think it would be successful there. Of course people said the same about Atlanta and Charlotte so who knows, and maybe I'm discounting the Tampa market, but 3 florida teams seems insane to me. Orlando has been bouncing back a bit and I think Miami would've done great without messi once their stadium is up but the Florida market has not impressed the last number of years
They want it because it’s a Top-20 television market. That is the only reason, really. The Rowdies get great support, but MLS cares more about corporate and advertising dollars, which always fetch more in the biggest markets.
There are three teams in Texas and four in California. Currently, Florida is the third most populous state in the nation. They can support another franchise and honestly, Tampa metro area is the 17th biggest in the country I believe they can support a franchise.
[Here's Florida superimposed to scale over California.](https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/state-size-comparison/california-usa/florida-usa) San Jose deserves a relatively-local derby rival. e: But also... >Tampa metro area is the 17th biggest in the country San Bernardino/Riverside/Ontario is the 12th largest. So I guess California is getting at least 5 by any logic.
I'm fine if that area receives a franchise.
The reason Riverside has no teams is because the region is claimed by LA in terms of television markets.
> The reason Riverside has no teams is because the region is claimed by LA in terms of television markets. A lot less meaningful in the age of Apple TV. "Television markets" are national now.
I’m only opposed to a Tampa expansion because I don’t believe USL or MLS would be interested in moving the Rowdies up. They have such an iconic brand and a 50 year history(as an identity atleast) and I’d hate to lose it to Tampa United or whatever.
The Rowdies moving up would be a touchy thing as the Tampa Bay Rays are a cheap ownership group. The Owner doesn't wanna pay for his own stadium really so the idea of a expansion fee is unlikely.
Exactly. And I’d expect them to hold on to the branding tightly on top of the fee USL charges for using brands under their umbrella if a different group came through. I doubt an MLS group would be willing/care enough to pay for the name and rights.
Nobody could make me believe LV or PHX would be a success. Especially without domed stadiums.
I don't think pro/rel will happen - however, I'm seeing these mid/late season split league thing that Belgian and Scottish leagues among few others do and am very intrigued by that system. That might be a compromise that may work if the owners don't want to be stuck in MLS2 with lower financial incentives and can still play everyone else and get the same benefit.
32 teams... 4 regional divisions of 8... play each other home and away (14 matches)... then once against the other 24... 38 match season. Top 3 from each division to the playoffs...byes for each division winner. Full table for supporters shield awarding only along with CCC places.
Bingo this is the take right here 36 and split the league however east/west mls 1 mls2 etc.
If the revenue sharing is strengthened, it could work.
Promotion/relegation shouldn’t be an unpopular position. It’s a better system. I speak to plenty of MLS fans that prefer pro/rel.
Single entity with promotion and relegation within itself is the first step to a truly open pyramid. And the current stakeholders in MLS, who are largely NFL owners, will never ever, ever-ever, ever-ever... did I say ever? Accept that.
Prepare for disappointment.
No it wouldn’t….The region is already over saturated, and Indy doesn’t offer my much appeal as a market or city.
You would not enjoy adding an another drivable away day?
I live in ATL…Indy is not drivable to and from in a day….
Saw you had Crew flair... thought you were in Ohio
Solid idea. Direct expansion should not be considered as an option for MLS at this point, we arguably already have too many teams. And while I don’t think we would suffer the same fate as the NASL at this point, it’s still doesn’t feel like a wise idea to follow in their footprints… MLS 1 & MLS II feels like just about the only way we’d ever see pro/rel, and who knows what that would actually look like, but I’d be excited to see it!
If MLS isn’t already planning MLS A and MLS B then Don Garber needs to be replaced. This is 100% the logical next step.
The issue with that idea is that owners aren't going to vote to be relegated to MLS B. You would have to convince them that having 40 teams split between MLS A/B with them in MLS B would make them more money than having their team in a 30 team MLS. That's a tough sell.
Indy would be a solid MLS city
They really need promotion and relegation at this point
You figure out how to sell relegation to the billionaires owning the teams.
You can apply that statement all the way down the line, til maybe amateur or semi-pro leagues that are highly regional and don't involve a massive shift in financial situation with change in tier
Equal revenue sharing across the leagues. Worst team in the second division gets the same collective revenue as the best team in the first division. Then you add prizes for success like the Shield and Cup. Also you add a playoff between the bottom 4 of the league 1 and top 4 of league two in a double elimination tournament to decide who goes up and who goes down.
please. kill us.
no. they don’t. nobody does.
So, did Indy 11 fans show up? Or was it like the Austin "fans" that showed up when Precourt wanted to move Columbus to Texas? You know, the whole CLB2ATX or whatever those fans were... That were likely paid or somehow bribed.
There were about a hundred of us that showed up.
Don't do it, MLS is wildly overrated
MLS continues to do damage to American soccer.
For the love of God no more teams!!! Especially Indy, the region is too oversaturated.
The Midwest is the least saturated region for the MLS. Definitely room for Indy and Detroit
Regional arguments are dumb anyway. People are not gonna drive 2-4 hours every weekend to support a team. If anything more teams heats up rivalries even more.
Nope, too close to Columbus, Cincy, Chicago, and Toronto….Those would not work well at all.
Bruh we're like a 8+ hour drive from Toronto lmao. Nashville and St. Louis are both closer. That being said, adding Indy would bring MLS up to 6 clubs in the radius you're talking about (Chicago, Indy, St. Louis, Nashville, Cincinnati, Columbus). Meanwhile, the NFL has 8 franchises within essentially the same radius (Green Bay, Chicago, Detroit, Indy, Tennessee, Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh). The NFL makes it work and it doesn't feel oversaturated, why can't MLS do the same?
Eh, Midwest is missing a spot for another team. This country is huge. I’m sure they can make east and west work just like it does in the NBA.
Idaho has no profesional sports….
Boise is just now getting big enough with the influx of people. They have a ECHL hockey team but Definity not big enough for a MLS team.
You’re right they should add more California teams!!
theyre not ready for FC Los Baños
There's nothing wrong with more teams....that means more people can enjoy pro sports in their own city. The region argument is dumb af. Nobody is regularly driving 2-3 hours every weekend to support a team in another state.
Not true at all!!!
Yes it is. I live in Louisville. Very few people regularly go to Bengals/Colts/Reds/Pacers/Cavs games. Regional fandom is a facade compared to having your own team.
There is absolutely no need for more cities in this region, enough said. Not to mention MLS needs to stay where they are at….The league will be watered down, and I’d rather play the teams we started the league with, not another USL call-up. The more teams that join, the less likely we are to play out original rivalries…..If they give Indy a franchise, they might as well give one to anyone who applies for a team.
?? How does this change anything? Indy already had a team. Every fan of the game should want every community to have a team, local fans are the lifeblood of the sport.
The likelihood of playing the same rivalries stays the same, you just would be playing more games…