http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2010/apr/29/holt-stays-optimistic-with-usl/

So after reading this, I have a few questions:

1) With Holt stating that theyw ant to cooperate with MLS and become a feeder league--Does this now mean that all of Ex-Presidente Marcos' crazy talk about competing wiht MLS and no USSF rules barring two first divisions had been officially shot and burried?

2) The regional setup? Wasn't that what the league had back in the day with Hershey and Maryland and a bunch of other teams that are long, long gone? What would be different this time.

3) Is Holt's 24-32 team league a misquote a misunderstandment or was he actually hallucinating if he made the statement as the author indicates?

3) Absoultely no games that require cross country flights until the postseason? Does that mean that we get to see the same 3 or four clubs five times a year with a few other teams from the same coast? (Sorry Stars and Aztex fans)

4) Could such a proposed setup mean anything other than proposed merger of USL1 & USL2?

5) Holt is quoted as saying that they are pretty sure that USL1 will have 8 to 10 team next year? Who in the NASL are they counting on coming back? Because otherwise, the numbers just don't ad up. You do the match.

So, lets see...

MLS wants 20+ teams
MLS wants a new reserve league
32 teams in USL
10-12 team NASL

I see were planning almost as well as BP did in the Gulf!
Are you going to need some of my U12 players?

Maybe this is really all about the elections coming up in November, after all that's all that really matters to anyone any more, getting re-elected.

Drill Baby Drill

Can somebody get a rope and tie those ears down, they could be dangerous in the next storm. We don't want anyone getting hurt.

On-point. Even with no MLS Reserve league, between NASL, USL there would be too many teams in Holt's Brave (Recycled) world. Of course, in Holt's world, I would imaging that he probably hopes to (re)absorb some of the NASL clubs after the league folds...

All of your questions are good ones. When I read interviews like this with Holt, or Marcos, or Wellman, or anyone from Traffic Sports USA, I wonder why they bother making absurd declarative statements that are often not compatible with reality. One can say that regional is the way to go and this is likely true. Austin would benefit from playing more of their matches against other teams from Texas. Minnesota would benefit from playing against teams from Chicago, Milwaukee, Omaha, Fargo, Rochester, etc. This seems unlikely to happen anytime soon.

Damn where you been yanki this article is nearly two weeks old?


I dont remember Marcos on that point but I would think that that plan is done and dusted.

Holt pretty much addressed it point blank in the article about cooperating with MLS. I think the sticking point is getting a system that works for the USL teams and doesnt see an MLS team taking a teams top striker halfway through the season. Dont know how that would work but that was the big stiking point last time.



the "bigger" pocketed teams started buying up all the best players, forcing up player salary. Travel got more expensive. Owners werent vetted as well as they are now. Also the TOA owners were the ones that want to go to a single-table, equal schedule which is the best way IMO but finacually not realistic.



that is a "if everything goes perfect, soccer explodes in the US" type statement, Realisticaly you could see 14 teams in USL2 next year. six in the newly forming western conference. the current 6 plus two more in the eastern conference. I was pointed out the new owner of the Wilmington Hammerheads this weekend at the Three Lions and are only finishing up the details. their is hope they might play an exibition match or two later this season.



He says national scale travel. With five to six regions, I could see some cross over between say a Southern region and the North Atlantic Region or a Hearthland and Midwest division during seasonal play. Of course with 4 regions and 24 teams you get about 6 teams per region.


the authors blog eludes to the same thing. I know something similar was proposed by the Battery to USL this past season, but to regionalize seasonal play. It obviously wasnt accepted last year but prehaps they are looking at it again.



Here is my wild speculation to the numbers.

Puerto Rico
Austin
Orlando
FCNY

rumored
2nd PR team
Detroit
Cleveland
Eugene, Oregon

Specualtion
Wilimington (could be if the incentives are right)
Brimingham (Nurock owns the rights and could see a "league run" team to make up numbers
Atlanta (same as above, NuRock owns the PDL team there as well)
Charleston, (go regional, maybe but I would say not likely)
London, Canada
Dayton, Ohio
San Diego

I wouldnt be surprised if a NASL team decides it prefers a more regional setup to lower travel cost. this past off season we saw some crazy things going in Front offices around the country.

Im not saying that its all going to work. but I can see some feasiblity in what Holt is saying. but im not ready to drink the Kool-aid

C'mon Mikey. You know that I am usually a day late and a dollar short.

Cool breakdown.

Marcos was talking that craziness a couple years ago on a USL Breakawy segment.

I think that it is more likely that Eugen would be USL2. And they will be on an Island (no pun intended).

The Birmingham-Nu Rock connection is a strong pull.

I missed that breakaway I guess. I can see saying "being competeive on the field, team vs. team" meaning USL teams wont roll over for MLS teams. But going head to head, league to league is a fantasy for any league!

I had the same thought about Eugene. make more sense and would fit perfect with the USL2 Westcoast conference.

the other thing about the franchise rights is they could be an incentive for a potential owner. NuRock owns the rights to Birmingham and Atlanta. Give the franchise right (what are they now $750,000?) as a perk to a investor. that is potentially two teams starting out right there. with out a large start up fee. Atlanta also go the new staidum in the WPS that opened last week. Im sure they wouldnt mind another tenant for part of the year.

Again I dont want to sound like a USL appologist, but now that Im am retired I have a ton of time to sit around and try to figure things out!

You make a lot of good points, but this list is a depressing read. FC New York? You could count the number of people excited about that project with one hand. A second team in Puerto Rico? Wilmington, Atlanta, and Cleveland because it all worked out so well before?

The more I read about future NASL and USL plans the more I believe that both groups are obstinately ignoring some fairly obvious truths. You don't open new franchises when the ones you have are barely treading water.

in order to grow you have to be able to do both I think. but creating new clubs closer to established markets will solidify those clubs by decreasing travel cost and developing rivalries

I think the new ownership are much more critical of new ownership. they laid down the law with Cleveland and Wilmington, revokeing their franchise from the owners for money owed. This opens up the market for new investors without taking on the previous owners debts. I know Wilmington had a investor lined up but USL didnt like what they saw and passed.

I think it was poor management that did in most those previous markets. it takes a bunch of factors working off the field to make soccer work, sales, presentation, marketing, sponsorships, branding. And each city team are going to have to tweak what they do

Im not completely writing off FCNY, they arent starting off promissing that is for sure!

As to the rest, I think the ownership and how they organize the club and learning from the lesson and mistakes of the clubs that were previously in those cities will be key to there success