Does Soccer do it Better?

[pk500]

Re: Does Soccer do it Better?

The thing you don't realize is that most top football and basketball players are ready to make an impact and start on 90% of teams so they wouldn't have to resort to going to bad teams and all the good players would go to the good teams. In soccer players need a lot more development before theyre ready. So the system works for soccer but wouldn't work for American sports.

Sure it would, with some sports. How many hockey players jump straight from juniors to the NHL? How many baseball players jump from high school or Class A summer ball straight to the bigs?

The difference in American sports is that you can never have to many great athletes and depth is really important since coaches will find ways to utilize all their talent.

Depth is just as important for a major European soccer club as it is for any American sport. First, the season lasts longer than any American sport, with most European domestic leagues starting in August or September and stretching to May. Second, teams play anywhere from 45-65 games with domestic competition, domestic cups, friendlies, continental cups, etc.

A top team like Chelsea needs two top players at almost every position due to injuries and the sheer exertion of playing a soccer match. There are only three subs allowed in a soccer match, so eight of the players are on the go for 45-plus minutes per half, with no time outs, no TV timeouts, no substitutions, no blows on the bench for a few minutes and running almost constantly on a pitch that's bigger than an American football field.

Take care,
PK

[mgoblue]

Re: Does Soccer do it Better?

what's sad is the MLS doesn't do it right....they need the academies and let teams sign and train/let players progress, instead of the stupid draft they have now

[JohnnytheSkin]

Re: Does Soccer do it Better?

Let us not forget that in addition to the club level soccer, most of the well known players also play in the international friendlies and the inevitable World Cup qualifying. Couple that with the long club schedule as PK mentioned and it's no comparison...international soccer players OWN North American sports stars.

The only argument could be made for NHL players, who finish the Stanley Cup FINALS in July and have to start training camp in September.

[SPTO]

Re: Does Soccer do it Better?

re: relegation

I think that the only NA sport that it would really apply to is MLB. It would be VERY interesting to see how a Triple A championship team do replacing a horrible MLB team "cough" Kansas City "cough".

[dkgojackets]

Re: Does Soccer do it Better?

The problem with doing that in MLB is that those AAA teams have players under contract with other MLB teams. They aren't there own team just in a different league.

[SPTO]

Re: Does Soccer do it Better?

Hmm yeah wasn't thinking of that part.

Well it COULD work if they re-jigged the minor league system a bit.

[zasbury25]

Re: Does Soccer do it Better?

This system would never work with any of the current major sports leagues in the US purely on the size of the United States in relation to any European country. It works in a place like the UK because the teams are closer to each other than in the US. Ignoring the MLB-Minors affiliations, imagine a AAA team taking the place of a MLB team and having to travel to the other side of the US to play its games when they normally don't travel outside of their region, and its usually by bus. All of the teams in the English leagues are at the most a few hours away; it would be like an English team being relegated to the Italian league. If that happened, that team would never survive because a majority of the soccer teams spend most, if not all, of their income on salaries and continually run in the red.

Promotion-Relegation works for the European Soccer leagues because of their location to each other; each league operates within their country, and then competes against each other in the Tournaments. It would work in a state in the US (Texas, California, etc.), but never an existing professional league. But I'm not sure how successful Promotion-Relegation really is, especially when you look at the Premier League in England. Since its reformation in 93, has a promoted team ever made it to the top 4? How many different teams have made it to the top 4 since 93? When there is no way to curb the top teams from continually spending and keep the rest of the field competitive, does it matter who gets relegated if the rest of the teams practically never have a shot to make the top 4, unless they spend their way into bankruptcy?

[Herbsinator]

Re: Does Soccer do it Better?

I would say that the closest thing to soccer in the United States would be College sports. Every team gets a shot at every player through recruiting. Confrence changes/changing from d1 to d1aa in a way are kind of like relegation/promotion, even though confrence changes don't happen that often.

[Peji911]

Re: Does Soccer do it Better?

This system would never work with any of the current major sports leagues in the US purely on the size of the United States in relation to any European country. It works in a place like the UK because the teams are closer to each other than in the US. Ignoring the MLB-Minors affiliations, imagine a AAA team taking the place of a MLB team and having to travel to the other side of the US to play its games when they normally don't travel outside of their region, and its usually by bus. All of the teams in the English leagues are at the most a few hours away; it would be like an English team being relegated to the Italian league. If that happened, that team would never survive because a majority of the soccer teams spend most, if not all, of their income on salaries and continually run in the red.

College Sports does it, so why couldnt the major sports...?

[dkgojackets]

Re: Does Soccer do it Better?

College Sports does it, so why couldnt the major sports...?

College sports still have conferences in generally the same region. Imagine the Devil Rays sucking it up and a farm team in California getting promoted to replace them.

[pk500]

Re: Does Soccer do it Better?

This system would never work with any of the current major sports leagues in the US purely on the size of the United States in relation to any European country. It works in a place like the UK because the teams are closer to each other than in the US. Ignoring the MLB-Minors affiliations, imagine a AAA team taking the place of a MLB team and having to travel to the other side of the US to play its games when they normally don't travel outside of their region, and its usually by bus.

First, there are only two AAA minor league baseball leagues, the PCL and International League. So you still have teams from the Northeast traveling to the Midwest for games in the IL. In the PCL, you have Nashville playing Tacoma, right?

Minor league hockey has just one AAA league -- the AHL. The league keeps its eastern and western teams to minimal travel schedules, but teams still have to criss-cross the continent during the long playoffs.

Minor-league baseball and hockey no longer are just regional.

Second, when Championship teams are promoted to the Premiership, they receive a HUGE financial windfall. That's why the most lucrative games in English football every year are the Championship final playoffs. They're arguably worth more than the Champions League final or the FA Cup final, as the three promoted teams from the Championship will earn a TON more cake in the Prem than they do in the Championship.

The same thing would happen to AAA baseball and hockey teams. They would get their share of MLB and NHL licensing and TV revenue once they were promoted, which would allow them to make these cross-country trips with relative ease.

It's not like the Toledo Mud Hens would take on the New York Yankees in their first year after promotion with the same budget with which it won the IL title the previous year.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

Re: Does Soccer do it Better?

I would say that the closest thing to soccer in the United States would be College sports. Every team gets a shot at every player through recruiting. Confrence changes/changing from d1 to d1aa in a way are kind of like relegation/promotion, even though confrence changes don't happen that often.

How many D-I teams ever drop to I-AA or II? Once you're in D-I, you're there to stay. There's only "promotion" in American college sports, not "relegation."

Take care,
PK

[zasbury25]

Re: Does Soccer do it Better?

The same thing would happen to AAA baseball and hockey teams. They would get their share of MLB and NHL licensing and TV revenue once they were promoted, which would allow them to make these cross-country trips with relative ease.

It's not like the Toledo Mud Hens would take on the New York Yankees in their first year after promotion with the same budget with which it won the IL title the previous year.

And the Mud Hens would magically sprout 30,000 more seats in Fifth Third Field to get the same potential revenue to stay competitive. The MLB isn't going to spot them some extra cash aside from league-wide TV revenue that would make up for the huge discrepancy they would lose from having such small facilities, being in a smaller TV market, and other obstacles they would have to overcome financially. Plus, a city like Toledo couldn't support a MLB team; Toledoans wouldn't be able to afford MLB games over a whole season and the lack of corporate sponsors in the area would doom the team. They would be one and done, just like 40% of the teams in the Premier League that are promoted.

[pk500]

Re: Does Soccer do it Better?

And the Mud Hens would magically sprout 30,000 more seats in Fifth Third Field to get the same potential revenue to stay competitive. The MLB isn't going to spot them some extra cash aside from league-wide TV revenue that would make up for the huge discrepancy they would lose from having such small facilities, being in a smaller TV market, and other obstacles they would have to overcome financially. Plus, a city like Toledo couldn't support a MLB team; Toledoans wouldn't be able to afford MLB games over a whole season and the lack of corporate sponsors in the area would doom the team. They would be one and done, just like 40% of the teams in the Premier League that are promoted.

And that's part of the appeal of promotion and relegation.

Toledo might have been a bad example. But what about a city like Indianapolis or Buffalo? Victory Field and Dunn Tire Park have capacities approaching 20,000, I believe.

Plus if you look at the EPL, Old Trafford now seats around 75,000 for Man U home games after an expansion from 68,000. Wigan was promoted last year and finished mid-table in the Premiership despite playing in the JJB Stadium, which seats only 25,000.

Success could come to teams without huge stadiums. But the franchise mindset is too entrenched in America for promotion/relegation to ever happen.

Take care,
PK

[NoSkillz50]

Re: Does Soccer do it Better?

The difference i see is that...

Top soccer teams, for whatever reason, are willing to pass up good young talent. This gives the smaller clubs a chance at these players.

In basketball/football the top teams would sign a majority of the top players. In football the top 15-20 teams would sign 90% of first round value players which wouldn't leave much for the bad teams.