4 comments

• 

  undrafted

  7 months ago

  Here's my take on the reasoning behind the demise of the reserve league. It was clear that MLS teams didn't have sufficient depth in proven players. Expanding the senior roster by 2 spots is a long overdue move. But that comes at some cost. With an upcoming CBA renegotiation next year and an incredibly tough sponsorship market, Garber wasn't getting any approval to suddenly up player expenses. The reserve league is nice in theory, but in reality it was full of guest players that wouldn't start at a good NCAA program. MLS was getting bad press for paying guys 12k/yr, even though they were glorified trialists, most of whom wouldn't get higher pay playing elsewhere. It's still to be seen if MLS axed the 12k/yr spots or the 17k/yr spots, but regardless they funded better proven depth by axing marginal 23 year old talent. Guys that 95% of the time are never going to be good MLS players. The cost of this move was the reserve league. MLS teams are starting to invest in youth programs (14-18 year olds). It'd be great to fund both but MLS decided it had to make a choice. Now the development of marginal college grads fall to the USL, their likely permanent home.
  
  Let's hope for more loans to USL, more PDL clubs, and deliverance on the promises of real youth programs.
  
  Do you have that original MLS promise in writing? And why did they make it way back at the inception of North America? :)
  reply
• 

  BishopvilleRed

  7 months ago

  KK - I also heard MLS will recognize and suspend operations over FIFA international dates. FINALLY! It's insane to expect fans to pay top dollar to watch clearly substandard sides.
  
  Garber also declared that teams can play Superliga or CONCACAF Champs League, not both. Logical, considering the dissolving of the reserve league
  
  I agree with our point on the reserve league. Opportunity lost. I see the points UNDRAFTED raises, but I think this is a step backwards. Football-wise, reserves league seems a logical step as a building block with youth programs and academies. Business-wise, an internal contraction looks like a short-sighted cost-cutting measure.
  
  SB
  reply
• 

  undrafted

  7 months ago

  I agree the reserve league is a step back, but not much of one since MLS wasn't anywhere close to getting the reserve league right. It wasn't full of real prospects. And it wasn't in the pyramid.
  
  I wouldn't count on MLS obersving all FIFA dates. Hopefully they'll be able to observe some. Given how tough it is to draw fans midweek or play in most markets before mid-March, there's only so much MLS can do. I'd suggest a rule that they suspend for any date when the USMNT plays a competitive match, during the Gold Cup, and during the World Cup. I think it's self-defeating to play through those. Next year 11 of 15 teams will play in stadiums controlled by someone with a stake in MLS. It's time to start making some changes, but of course they'll probably blame the economy for keeping the status quo. I'll get over it as long as they make clear they recognize the ultimate goal of bette recognizing international dates.
  reply
• 

  Chris

  7 months ago

  Here's what the pro-east-west conference people don't seem to comprehend.....MLS teams already play every other team twice, one home, one away. The only difference between what they do now and a single table is that MLS teams currently play each team in thier conferences 3 times. Someone explain to me how dropping the 3rd conference game and organizing as a single table is more travel?? Duh - its not. Let's stop using the travel excuse as a reason not to adopt the single table. It's lame and everyone can see right through it.
  
  Now next year there will be 15 teams. A single table would produce only 28 games. So maybe it might be worth waiting until 2010 when philly joins then it would be 30 games. But please don't give me the travel excuse....it would not cost a dime more than it does now.
  reply