Correction: Beat 3 MLS sides in 2022 on the way to the US Open Cup Final. Round of 16; SRFC 2-0 San Jose Earthquakes. Quarterfinals; SRFC 2-1 Los Angeles Galaxy. Semifinals; SRFC 0 (5) - 0 (4) Sporting Kansas City.
First time since 2008 a 2nd division team, Charleston Battery, has reached the US Open Cup Finals. First time since 2005 a 2nd division team, Minnesota Thunder, defeated 3 MLS sides.
As we both know, only the 2nd division Rochester Raging Rhinos defeated 4 MLS sides on their way to winning the 1999 US Open Cup.
Disregard. See this was fixed in the above-listed, as opposed to what appeared in “Quail City: Weighing Republic FC’s MLS Possibility Against USL’s New Direction” article that appeared in Email.
No worries Ryan, got your back. Sacramento Bee reporter’s (name withheld) who listed national championships won by Sacramento’s professional sports teams, after SRFC won the 2014 USL Pro Championship, got my ire up after leaving out the city’s first national professional championship by this Sacramento team (hint it was also a soccer team. By virtue of their championship, they qualified for the 1980 CONCACAF Champions Cup). Resulted in me delving back into Sacramento’s amateur/semi-professional/professional/men’s and women’s soccer history. Evan Ream’s “Not when, but if?” is a good read that touches on a lot Sactown’s soccer history.
Interesting. Will Lucy ever stop taunting us with that football?
A couple of other thoughts:
-Is MLS going to wait for Division 1 to launch and then try to steal the top members (sort like some ABA / NBA merger)? Phoenix, Sacto, Detroit, OC, you're coming with me.
-Is MLS worth the extra cost/effort. It is still noticeably inferior to Euro soccer so what is the premium you are paying for and is it worth it. Do you choose to watch MLS?
-That schedule change could wreak havoc on some teams, especially Minnesota, Toronto, etc. I'm not sure I'd want to go through a winter of soccer TBH.
MLS will likely base its expansion decisions on which clubs demonstrate strong investment, stadium development, local support, and whether they fill a strategic market as USL Division One begins to take shape.
When it comes to whether joining MLS is worth the cost and effort, the answer has less to do with on-field quality and more to do with marketability. At present, owning an MLS team is essentially a guaranteed money-maker. Fans support their local club because it represents their city or region, and others tune in simply because MLS is positioned as the country’s top league.
Regarding the potential schedule change, many assume it would damage the league. In reality, it may be less harmful than feared and could even bring benefits. Aligning MLS’s calendar with traditional international transfer windows would modernize operations and reduce some of the “Americanized” quirks of the sport.
As for USL Division One, while skepticism exists about its ability to perform, growth will take time. MLS itself wasn’t an immediate success. Even if USL D1 doesn’t draw 20,000+ fans per match straight out the gate, consistent improvements in play, coupled with the community investment these clubs make, can build momentum. Over time, that foundation of competition and support will translate into long-term success for the league.
MLS is certainly designed to be "too big and too cheap to fail" but I do wonder about the value for the dollar for the owner. For example, is David Tepper really getting a great return on his $500m buy-in cost? Outside of the buy-in fee is there really evidence of team valuation increases, from what I'm seeing San Jose is getting lukewarm interest/valuations.
Oh well, the NFL type cartel will roll on and strong arm whoever they need to. I guess that is what the Leagues Cup and the Open Cup BS was all about. Leverage everything.
I'm somewhat bullish on the USL's future. It'll take a second, I agree. There is certainly financial risk, but the opportunity for something "real" will be a big selling point (and probably of more value to younger fans). And markets not otherwise represented will be a bigger and bigger opportunity (aka Spokane fans not having to root for Seattle teams, or OC for LA, etc...).
Correction: Beat 3 MLS sides in 2022 on the way to the US Open Cup Final. Round of 16; SRFC 2-0 San Jose Earthquakes. Quarterfinals; SRFC 2-1 Los Angeles Galaxy. Semifinals; SRFC 0 (5) - 0 (4) Sporting Kansas City.
First time since 2008 a 2nd division team, Charleston Battery, has reached the US Open Cup Finals. First time since 2005 a 2nd division team, Minnesota Thunder, defeated 3 MLS sides.
As we both know, only the 2nd division Rochester Raging Rhinos defeated 4 MLS sides on their way to winning the 1999 US Open Cup.
Disregard. See this was fixed in the above-listed, as opposed to what appeared in “Quail City: Weighing Republic FC’s MLS Possibility Against USL’s New Direction” article that appeared in Email.
Yes, that was on me, my memory failed me. Proof that even editors sometimes need… an editor.
No worries Ryan, got your back. Sacramento Bee reporter’s (name withheld) who listed national championships won by Sacramento’s professional sports teams, after SRFC won the 2014 USL Pro Championship, got my ire up after leaving out the city’s first national professional championship by this Sacramento team (hint it was also a soccer team. By virtue of their championship, they qualified for the 1980 CONCACAF Champions Cup). Resulted in me delving back into Sacramento’s amateur/semi-professional/professional/men’s and women’s soccer history. Evan Ream’s “Not when, but if?” is a good read that touches on a lot Sactown’s soccer history.
Interesting. Will Lucy ever stop taunting us with that football?
A couple of other thoughts:
-Is MLS going to wait for Division 1 to launch and then try to steal the top members (sort like some ABA / NBA merger)? Phoenix, Sacto, Detroit, OC, you're coming with me.
-Is MLS worth the extra cost/effort. It is still noticeably inferior to Euro soccer so what is the premium you are paying for and is it worth it. Do you choose to watch MLS?
-That schedule change could wreak havoc on some teams, especially Minnesota, Toronto, etc. I'm not sure I'd want to go through a winter of soccer TBH.
MLS will likely base its expansion decisions on which clubs demonstrate strong investment, stadium development, local support, and whether they fill a strategic market as USL Division One begins to take shape.
When it comes to whether joining MLS is worth the cost and effort, the answer has less to do with on-field quality and more to do with marketability. At present, owning an MLS team is essentially a guaranteed money-maker. Fans support their local club because it represents their city or region, and others tune in simply because MLS is positioned as the country’s top league.
Regarding the potential schedule change, many assume it would damage the league. In reality, it may be less harmful than feared and could even bring benefits. Aligning MLS’s calendar with traditional international transfer windows would modernize operations and reduce some of the “Americanized” quirks of the sport.
As for USL Division One, while skepticism exists about its ability to perform, growth will take time. MLS itself wasn’t an immediate success. Even if USL D1 doesn’t draw 20,000+ fans per match straight out the gate, consistent improvements in play, coupled with the community investment these clubs make, can build momentum. Over time, that foundation of competition and support will translate into long-term success for the league.
MLS is certainly designed to be "too big and too cheap to fail" but I do wonder about the value for the dollar for the owner. For example, is David Tepper really getting a great return on his $500m buy-in cost? Outside of the buy-in fee is there really evidence of team valuation increases, from what I'm seeing San Jose is getting lukewarm interest/valuations.
Oh well, the NFL type cartel will roll on and strong arm whoever they need to. I guess that is what the Leagues Cup and the Open Cup BS was all about. Leverage everything.
I'm somewhat bullish on the USL's future. It'll take a second, I agree. There is certainly financial risk, but the opportunity for something "real" will be a big selling point (and probably of more value to younger fans). And markets not otherwise represented will be a bigger and bigger opportunity (aka Spokane fans not having to root for Seattle teams, or OC for LA, etc...).