Soccer Thread 2016-17

[Butter]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Pretty terrible indication of how MLS is developing US players though IMO. Beer leaguers isn't an overexaggeration (3 of the 23 man squad not playing in the Martinique League) - an MLS youth academy should probably be winning that game comfortably, never mind a US team that is pretty much the MLS select

Originally Posted by bhlloy

When you say Nicaragua are you talking about the country of 6 million with all its national team players playing in what is essentially a semi pro league?

I dunno, with all the vast amounts of money in MLS and around US soccer I'd hope the national team has moved past getting excited about beating those kinds of teams. With a C,D or whatever you want to call it squad.

Watching sports with you must be an absolute joy.

We're losing to these pieces of crap?

Who cares that we're winning, we should be beating these pieces of crap!

Awesome.

[ISiddiqui]

I mean Mexico only beat Curacao 2-0, they must be complete shit!

[Critch]

Not confirmed yet, but allegedly Barcelona have accepted a PSG offer for Neymar. 222 million euros ($260 million)

[sovereignstar v2]

Not groundbreaking news, but to help put today's signings in perspective.

https://tomkinstimes.com/2017/07/sho...ter-inflation/

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by sovereignstar v2

Not groundbreaking news, but to help put today's signings in perspective.

Shock: Transfers Now Cost More; Plus Top 100 Signings After Inflation | The Tomkins Times

Of course player prizes are up in the Premier League, the Brexit has made the pound already lose 10% of its value since a year ago. Clubs will have to spend £1.1M for a player that nine months ago cost £1M.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by sovereignstar v2

Not groundbreaking news, but to help put today's signings in perspective.

Shock: Transfers Now Cost More; Plus Top 100 Signings After Inflation | The Tomkins Times

The implication that ALL transfers are inflated in incorrect only the very top levels have been inflated, the lower levels have actually been deflated in England by the increased player power and crippling of the youth systems.

Its still also very possible to get hold of talented players cheap if the clubs time things right or approach unsettled players, for every over-inflated price there is a decent signing at a sensible one elsewhere if you look ...

Markus Suttner (Defender) FC Ingolstadt -> Brighton 4.5m
Nathaniel Chalobah (Midfielder) Chelsea -> Watford 5.7m
Vicente Iborra (Midfielder) Sevilla -> Leicester 15m

But yes times they are a changing in the world of football and the upper echelons are showing some ludicriously inflated values for players, especially if several clubs are competing or its a youngster who is considered to have a bright future ...

I've rewritten nearly all of the transfer valuation code and AI in FMM from scratch this summer for just this reason

PS - Generally there appear to be a few types of clubs over-paying: Those rich ones competing for trophies, Wannabies with money who want to and those who are scared of being relegated who feel they need to reinforce their squad desperately ... the teams somewhere in the middle appear to be picking up the crumbs at sensible prices (ie. Watford, Brighton, Stoke, etc.) ... I was surprised to see Josh Tymon sign for Stoke on a free-transfer, as an English Under 21 international who has shown real promise I'd expected to see more competition for his signature from other clubs (and i'm sure a larger club could have turned his head if they'd been interested).

[MrBug708]

Altidore just got bit by the Salvadoran player

[CrescentMoonie]

CONCACAF won't do anything, but I hope the US plays El Salvador in a friendly some time in the future and just puts a bunch of 6'2"+ bruisers out there and injure everyone in sight.

Also, fire Ben Olson.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

CONCACAF won't do anything, but I hope the US plays El Salvador in a friendly some time in the future and just puts a bunch of 6'2"+ bruisers out there and injure everyone in sight.

Also, fire Ben Olson.

What do you have against poor old UCLA QB Ben Olson?

[ISiddiqui]

Holy shit Jamaica upset Mexico in the semis of the GC and is in their second straight Gold Cup Finals (they upset the US to do it in 2015)!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[whomario]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Its still also very possible to get hold of talented players cheap if the clubs time things right or approach unsettled players, for every over-inflated price there is a decent signing at a sensible one elsewhere if you look ...

Markus Suttner (Defender) FC Ingolstadt -> Brighton 4.5m

no offense, but he's the kind of player changing clubs for like 1.5 mil at most within Europe-propper A 30 year old defender with 1 year left on his contract and exactly 1 season played in a good league.

[Butter]

Didn't even bother watching the Jamaica-Mexico Semi as I figured it was a foregone conclusion.

Corona looked like he could've gotten to that goal if he wanted. He stood there for what seemed like a full second and watched it go in.

[kingfc22]

MLS reportedly says no to 4 Billion Dollars

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by kingfc22

MLS reportedly says no to 4 Billion Dollars

Good. Pro/Rel in the US is so freaking stupid that everyone who pushes for it should be neutered.

Also, there's no actual offer. They literally can't negotiate with him. It's one of the idiot NASL owners trying to buy the media rights to the league in what is probably some jacked up move to get his franchise into the league.

[Butter]

What a hot take.

As long as the rights fees for a team are so lucrative AND public money continues to be used for MLS stadia, there will never be promotion/relegation. TV ratings are still generally not good though.

They can't keep expanding forever though, unless a 40 team First Division is the goal. At that point, the expansion money runs out. Then at some point, TV companies are going to actually demand, you know, a return on investment. Which they are not getting with current MLS TV ratings.

All options should be on the table. All I know is that I couldn't really care less about the MLS playoffs... or really the MLS in general. I've tried to get into Columbus Crew before, but the stakes just feel so low for every game. It's like watching the 1st-3rd quarters of literally every NBA game. Don't know how you fix that.

[ISiddiqui]

Also a $4bil deal would be, what $12-$15mil more a club. The downsides are way greater than that and would end up costing far more than that (esp when you factor in the inevitable litigation).

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by Butter

What a hot take.

As long as the rights fees for a team are so lucrative AND public money continues to be used for MLS stadia, there will never be promotion/relegation. TV ratings are still generally not good though.

They can't keep expanding forever though, unless a 40 team First Division is the goal. At that point, the expansion money runs out. Then at some point, TV companies are going to actually demand, you know, a return on investment. Which they are not getting with current MLS TV ratings.

All options should be on the table. All I know is that I couldn't really care less about the MLS playoffs... or really the MLS in general. I've tried to get into Columbus Crew before, but the stakes just feel so low for every game. It's like watching the 1st-3rd quarters of literally every NBA game. Don't know how you fix that.

All options should not be on the table.

You start by letting a generation of fans actually grow up. Then you look at the ratings and attendance and see the obvious upswing. Next you realize that TV rights fees aren't going to matter fairly soon, and even if they do there are no TV execs who are going to accept a deal with MLS that could have the league in a position where there's no teams in LA or NY the way pro/rel could. Finally, you let the league grow itself like an American sports league and adapt as needed. That doesn't even get to the part where the owners paid for franchises and changing the rules on the existing ones would end up in court for years or even decades.

Pro/rel in the US is moronic. It works in teeny, tiny countries in Europe where there's 1 or 2 markets that would be in the top 50 in the US. We have more metro areas over 1 million people than the entire EU. It's a joke that someone would even try to approach MLS on the matter and worse that ESPN tried to stir the pot with a headline that can't be true because you can't turn something down when it's illegal to negotiate for it in the first place.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

All options should not be on the table.

You start by letting a generation of fans actually grow up. Then you look at the ratings and attendance and see the obvious upswing. Next you realize that TV rights fees aren't going to matter fairly soon, and even if they do there are no TV execs who are going to accept a deal with MLS that could have the league in a position where there's no teams in LA or NY the way pro/rel could. Finally, you let the league grow itself like an American sports league and adapt as needed. That doesn't even get to the part where the owners paid for franchises and changing the rules on the existing ones would end up in court for years or even decades.

Pro/rel in the US is moronic. It works in teeny, tiny countries in Europe where there's 1 or 2 markets that would be in the top 50 in the US. We have more metro areas over 1 million people than the entire EU. It's a joke that someone would even try to approach MLS on the matter and worse that ESPN tried to stir the pot with a headline that can't be true because you can't turn something down when it's illegal to negotiate for it in the first place.

Amen!

It's especially ridiculous for ESPN to stir the pot when THEY are the ones that own the exclusive renegotiation rights!

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Holy shit Jamaica upset Mexico in the semis of the GC and is in their second straight Gold Cup Finals (they upset the US to do it in 2015)!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

This just proves that Liga MX can't develop players.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

Good. Pro/Rel in the US is so freaking stupid that everyone who pushes for it should be neutered.

+1

[Butter]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

You start by letting a generation of fans actually grow up. Then you look at the ratings and attendance and see the obvious upswing.

Upswing, but still worse than hockey. Still worse than foreign soccer, including Mexican soccer. ESPN dumped the NHL for the ratings they used to get which were better than MLS.

Next you realize that TV rights fees aren't going to matter fairly soon, and even if they do there are no TV execs who are going to accept a deal with MLS that could have the league in a position where there's no teams in LA or NY the way pro/rel could.

Good argument. "They won't matter, but if they do, then ______." I agree though that the $4 million each team is getting is probably not a deal breaker. But I have to think that TV is part of the long-term health and growth plan. With TV money running dry at some point, you'd have to think this is a concern.

Finally, you let the league grow itself like an American sports league and adapt as needed. That doesn't even get to the part where the owners paid for franchises and changing the rules on the existing ones would end up in court for years or even decades.

Pro/rel in the US is moronic. It works in teeny, tiny countries in Europe where there's 1 or 2 markets that would be in the top 50 in the US. We have more metro areas over 1 million people than the entire EU. It's a joke that someone would even try to approach MLS on the matter and worse that ESPN tried to stir the pot with a headline that can't be true because you can't turn something down when it's illegal to negotiate for it in the first place.

I agree with some of this, but I'm also saying that dismissing something out of hand just because it is not an "American" concept is equally moronic. I do think that at some point, you have to reach the ceiling on expansion. And at some point, public financing for sports is going to become a major issue that will hurt MLS. And by then you better have a plan to deal with it. Whatever that is.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Butter

Upswing, but still worse than hockey. Still worse than foreign soccer, including Mexican soccer. ESPN dumped the NHL for the ratings they used to get which were better than MLS.

LigaMX is the ONLY soccer league in the US that gets decent ratings. The English Premier League gets around 600k viewers. At best a million. Yes, that's better than MLS, but still fairly paltry for a league.

Good argument. "They won't matter, but if they do, then ______." I agree though that the $4 million each team is getting is probably not a deal breaker. But I have to think that TV is part of the long-term health and growth plan. With TV money running dry at some point, you'd have to think this is a concern.

ESPN and FOX have tied themselves somewhat to the league. FOX, especially, as they now have World Cup rights and MLS broadcasts are basically somewhat of a trial run for future WCs, and knowing FOX, they are going to try to doubleheader the shit out of matches.

I agree with some of this, but I'm also saying that dismissing something out of hand just because it is not an "American" concept is equally moronic. I do think that at some point, you have to reach the ceiling on expansion. And at some point, public financing for sports is going to become a major issue that will hurt MLS. And by then you better have a plan to deal with it. Whatever that is.

Promotion/Relegation isn't that plan. It's a trite rallying cry that has way too many issues (logistically, legally, economically) to actually work. It's not that it's not "American" - it's that things that work in smaller European countries probably won't work in a country the size of Western Europe (with a much smaller density).

[CrescentMoonie]

MLS TV ratings are up, and the last couple of years have shown they do much better on the main networks. Fox broadcasts on their network averaged 696k last season. ESPN has moved almost all broadcasts to their main channel over ESPN2. Even so, I think the big issue is the age of the fanbase, both real and potential, and the realization that they're not the people with 500 cable channels.

I think the end game is 40 teams in MLS, with each one having a reserve squad in D2. The D2 standards aren't based on TV markets, but MSAs. The rules are 75% of teams in the US and 75% in markets of 750k+ people. There are currently 53 MSAs over 1 million and 75 over 750k. Those numbers will likely be 56 and 80 by 2020.

MLS with 40 teams, likely having 2 in NY, LA, and Chicago would take up most of the top 37 markets. Reserve squads will take up many of the rest of the top 75, even though some teams are either playing in their home stadium (NYRB, Galaxy) or in small markets like Reno (San Jose). That leaves several independent teams to fill in the rest. I would expect the schedule to either be two divisions with a 38 game round robin and the top 2-4 meeting in the playoffs or something akin to a Champions League style schedule.

Basically, the plan is looking more and more like becoming the new baseball with TV being a necessary component now but probably not in the fairly near future. At no point does anything like pro/rel even belong in the discussion.

[ISiddiqui]

I think baseball is definitely the best analogue for MLS. And similar to baseball those reserve squads should have separate identities - basically MLS controls training/roster decisions while local team owners control marketing, so instead of Team 2 you have local names. I do think the USL is going in that direction (and they are affiliated with MLS) and also starting USL 3 for even smaller markets.

I don't know if 40 is the end game for MLS, but it'll definitely be more than 28.

[Butter]

40 just seems unwieldy.

[ISiddiqui]

I think people like 40 because they think you can have an East league and a West league (or 4 10 team divisions), but people want to see cross country matchups and that would kill a lot of that. I mean the Revs just had their highest attendance all year this past weekend because the Galaxy were in town.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by Butter

40 just seems unwieldy.

Only if it tries to follow the convention of playing every team home and away. Operate like old school baseball, with the leagues completely separate until the championship, and it works fine. It may be 32 or 36 instead, just to allow time for playoffs. Even there, I'd lean more towards 36.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think people like 40 because they think you can have an East league and a West league (or 4 10 team divisions), but people want to see cross country matchups and that would kill a lot of that. I mean the Revs just had their highest attendance all year this past weekend because the Galaxy were in town.

Yeah, I think that's more due to an overall rising trend all season. The previous high was against RSL. I doubt there's a big push for the Salt Lake glamour game. That's also coming off their highest average attendance since 97 last year. LAG adds to it, but I don't think it's that much of a booster.

[ISiddiqui]

Perhaps, but it was 50% higher than their average attendance this season (the LA game had an attendance of 27,441 - while their average this season has been 17,780).

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Perhaps, but it was 50% higher than their average attendance this season (the LA game had an attendance of 27,441 - while their average this season has been 17,780).

They always start slow. They were at 13k attendance through week 8 or 9. It's just par for the course with their fanbase. If they're good, the numbers tick up the rest of the year.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, but that's quite a bump. I think you are seriously underestimating the draw an LA Galaxy has (similar bumps would apply for teams like Seattle). The days of having a conference blocked off until the Championship a la AL and NL are over.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yeah, but that's quite a bump. I think you are seriously underestimating the draw an LA Galaxy has (similar bumps would apply for teams like Seattle). The days of having a conference blocked off until the Championship a la AL and NL are over.

They've still got some pull, for sure, but Chicago has been terrible for years until now and NE pulled 21k against them just a couple of weeks ago. The Galaxy do pull in some extra people, but 21k for Chicago and RSL at separate times is pretty indicative of there being a good sized fanbase anyways.

[ISiddiqui]

A player whose name starts with S and ends with steiger explains why Chicago was able to draw 21k from the Gillette Stadium.

New England's average last season was 20k and the Galaxy got 27k out. Not saying that the Revs are terrible, but the Galaxy definitely have great pull in this league and people are not going to be happy when you say you won't be able to see the Galaxy live unless you live in a Western Conference city.

[digamma]

The average attendance for a New England team is weighed down by March and April. They've averaged 20k plus on weekends since the beginning of May. I also don't know who S-steiger is, so I'm likely full of it. Just was curious about the numbers.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

A player whose name starts with S and ends with steiger explains why Chicago was able to draw 21k from the Gillette Stadium.

New England's average last season was 20k and the Galaxy got 27k out. Not saying that the Revs are terrible, but the Galaxy definitely have great pull in this league and people are not going to be happy when you say you won't be able to see the Galaxy live unless you live in a Western Conference city.

Then you don't do the conferences geographically. Much like MLB did, both conferences should be national, but with a focus on existing rivalries. That's part of the need for 2 teams in both NY and LA. Maybe the league stops at 32 or 36 teams to allow conference play with the divisions from the other league played every other year. There's a lot of flexibility.

Let's say it's 32. Two conferences of 16 with 2 divisions of 8 in each conference. You always play everyone in your division twice. That's 14 games. You play the teams in the other division in your conference, alternating home and away, once each year. That's 22 games. You play one division from the other conference each year, alternating both which division and home and away each time through. That's 30 games before playoffs and you still get the big names while keeping access to your main rivalries. If the league goes to 36 it gives you 16 + 9 + 9 for 34 before playoffs (which is what they do now). 40 would probably be untenable at that point.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by digamma

The average attendance for a New England team is weighed down by March and April. They've averaged 20k plus on weekends since the beginning of May. I also don't know who S-steiger is, so I'm likely full of it. Just was curious about the numbers.

That's NE every year. Early season, for whatever reason, is terrible. Week 9 they were averaging 13k. This month they pulled 13k on a Thursday night.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

A player whose name starts with S and ends with steiger explains why Chicago was able to draw 21k from the Gillette Stadium.

New England's average last season was 20k and the Galaxy got 27k out. Not saying that the Revs are terrible, but the Galaxy definitely have great pull in this league and people are not going to be happy when you say you won't be able to see the Galaxy live unless you live in a Western Conference city.

I don't think Schweinsteiger is the huge draw that a Beckham, Gerrard, or any big Portuguese name would be.

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

That's NE every year. Early season, for whatever reason, is terrible.

40, 46, 44+rain, 46, 49+rain. Those are the listed temperatures for the first 5 home games. (Though somehow that 5th one was the REAL game that got 21k... Wouldn't surprise me if they were running some promotion for youth teams or something that game.) Don't even get me started again on how much worse it is having it in Foxboro instead of in a smaller stadium anywhere within public transportation range of Boston, because it probably won't change (and I don't live there anymore )

I do think having 4 or 3 divisions makes a lot of sense. Home/away vs your division, 1 game per year vs the other divisions. That works pretty well with anywhere from 30-36 teams, and I'm not sure there's any need to push out to 40 teams, especially if you want to have franchise relocation on the table as an "incentive" for cities to publicly finance stadiums for existing teams. I also do think having something like that with smaller regional divisions could help those regional rivalries.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

Then you don't do the conferences geographically. Much like MLB did, both conferences should be national, but with a focus on existing rivalries. That's part of the need for 2 teams in both NY and LA. Maybe the league stops at 32 or 36 teams to allow conference play with the divisions from the other league played every other year. There's a lot of flexibility.

MLB and NFL has two national conferences due to history. No other US sport does it that way and there is no reason for MLS to do it. At this point, East v. West is accepted and that's the way it'll stay going forward, I'm sure of it. In addition, they will make sure that people in the East see Morris, Dempsey, Dos Santos and people in the West see Bradley, Altidore, and Almiron. They may do it an every other year thing, but there isn't going to be closed off conference type of thing.

And "S-steiger" is (Bastian) Schweinsteiger, arguably the most famous player in the league.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I don't think Schweinsteiger is the huge draw that a Beckham, Gerrard, or any big Portuguese name would be.

You named two former Galaxy player, btw .

And Schweini is as big a draw as they are, which is why Chicago had 21k rather than 27k .

Not saying that the Revs don't get better attendance as the year goes on (well likely until football season), but the Galaxy are still a very big draw in this league.

[MrBug708]

I'd say Villa is the most famous player, no? Trivial discussion though

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And "S-steiger" is (Bastian) Schweinsteiger, arguably the most famous player in the league.

Who?

I can name maybe a handful of players who do/have played in MLS, that ain't one of 'em. That strongly suggests that he's not even in the "most famous player" discussion honestly

[ISiddiqui]

::shrug:: Among soccer fans being the one of the best and the most popular player of the last World Cup winner is pretty damned famous. He's one of the bigger 'names' that MLS has gotten since David Beckham (I'd think that only Villa and Henry match him in soccer name recognition after Beckham's entry into the league).

[digamma]

I don't really follow the league more than loosely, and you may have a point among worldwide soccer fans, but I would have thought that Tim Howard or Clint Dempsey were more famous in the US. (After Beckham previously, of course.) You have to remember most American soccer "fans" watch the game once every four years and don't follow European club soccer.

[sovereignstar v2]

It's boom boom time on the other side of the ocean.

[Chief Rum]

Without interjecting myself into the nuances of the Revolution attendance ups and downs, I wanted to note that popular Mexican national Gio de los Santos plays for the Galaxy, and I am pretty sure whatever team he played for would naturally up the attendance from the local Mexican population.

That said, certainly the Galaxy, at the MLS level, is a cornerstone franchise of the league and no doubt a big draw for MLS fans in cities where it doesn't visit as often.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I don't think Schweinsteiger is the huge draw that a Beckham, Gerrard, or any big Portuguese name would be.

I am not going to argue that an EPL player would possibly be a bigger draw, but Schweinsteiger is a huge draw. When the Fire came to Cincy for the US Cup game, outside of the regulars that were going to go to the game anyway, the others I knew that were going went due to Schweinsteiger.

[PilotMan]

These uni's tonight are awful.

[sovereignstar v2]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

These uni's tonight are awful.

Wow. Awful doesn't begin to describe how bad those are. lol

Edit: Oh, I thought they were these below, but apaprently not. Maybe warmups?

[PilotMan]

yeah, thought those were the jersey's. Those are awful.

Bad break for Jamaica, pun intended.

Nice to see Jozy bring the cannon tonight.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

These uni's tonight are awful.

Wait... what?!! The red and blue Waldos are the best jersey that the US has ever worn. They literally sold them out of the US store because they were so popular. There is a clamor to have them continue onwards through the World Cup.

I cannot disagree any stronger with that sentiment.