Well, as a league when owners are willing to buy in to the tune of 350 million (Charlotte) all the other owners in the league aren't gonna give a shit.
Morskitter wrote "Spikes, choppas, tentacles, magic? Can't hold a candle to Sergeant Pimp here."
0
Options
TavIrish Minister for DefenceRegistered Userregular
It's weird though because you can't get relegated and play against other, not so good teams, and build yourself up
And presumably nobody wants to play for you if they are good
so teams I guess just stay shit for a while
there's a couple of things at play really
1) the worse a team is, the better draft picks they get next season. Draft picks probably won't change your season but there's some gems to be found (Cyle Larin got 17 goals in his first season, Jack Harrison had a goal contribution every other game in his first season, Andrew Farrell has played 30+ games a season for the Revs since he was drafted) and its great that there's a valid pipeline from the amateur to the professional game
2) realistically, due to the financial constraints of the league, a lot of the teams are on a pretty even footing talent wise so it really emphasises how important good coaching is. Probably the best example of this is Viera at NYCFC. He had them playing a Man City-lite game that had them absolutely dominating the league and once he left, they started eating shit and they've not even come close to recovering (they were the only team to not score a single goal pre-corona) despite having a pretty similar team
teams can stay shit for a while or they can have a great season and its kind of unpredictable as to which is going to happen, which makes it all the more interesting. You don't really get teams maintaining their success like in the European leagues
Don't forget how the league puts its thumb on the scale so famous older players end up in Los Angeles (or other large market and marketable teams).
It's not quite as bad as when the guy who ran the Negro Leagues would shuffle players around on his own initiative, but it isn't too far off.
Also, too, the league itself stepped in to pressure city officials to build a new stadium when the owner of the Columbus team started pulling shit to force a move to Austin (because the league really wants a team in Austin). The city and fans fought back. The owner sold the team and the league gave him a new expansion team in...Austin.
Or how about when the league bends over backwards so that Beckham can finally get his shit together so that MLS can have a team in Miami. While also ignoring many other cities who want to join and already have teams and solid support?
The MLS is fucking awful. The only US league that is worse is the NFL and only because they've been doing it for longer. The whole nature of paying huge fees to buy in will prevent a proper promotion/relegation scheme. But that won't stop the league from constant expansion.
It's a shit show.
i mean yeah but those things don't really factor in if someone just wants to get into watching the league
+1
Options
TavIrish Minister for DefenceRegistered Userregular
and since no one gave an actual suggestion, i'm gonna say follow the rapids
Granted, it's MLS, so it's about on par with a third-tier Euro league right now (maybe low second tier, but that's not the point).
There are now 26(!) teams in MLS, which is a lot in one typical soccer league. In this particular tournament, there are 24 teams, because 2 withdrew due to COVID (Dallas, Nashville).
A breakdown of those 24 teams in terms more familiar with typical European soccer:
Teams that are expected to be good every year and spend all the money on the good players: LAFC, LA Galaxy, NYCFC, New York Red Bulls
Teams that actually did win the last few years: Seattle, Atlanta, Toronto, Kansas City, Portland
Teams that have been around, haven't won in a while, but might be good now: Columbus, Chicago, Colorado, Philadelphia, Salt Lake City
Teams that have been around, haven't won in a while, but are not good now: San Jose, DC, Houston, New England, Montreal
Newer MLS teams that are probably good right now: Minnesota, Miami
Newer MLS teams that are very bad right now: Orlando, Cincinnati
Currently an MLS trash fire as an organization: Vancouver
Ideally I'd support like, the slightly crap but plucky underdog team who could pull it together and do well but it feels a bit like cos there's no relegation or promotion that's just not really the same thing
+1
Options
FishmanPut your goddamned hand in the goddamned Box of Pain.Registered Userregular
I switch support between whichever MLS team has the strongest connection to NZ football.
This used to be Portland, with a long history of association both onfield and backoffice staff, but then it sounds like they might have fucked up Jake Gleeson, one of our best Goalkeeps, so I've gone cool on them.
The Rapids picked up our former national coach for a while, who imported a bunch of NZ players, but then they were woeful.
Fortunately now it appears that Minnesota is raiding our pro player stocks and they're currently running a squad containing 3 internationals, so...
They’re allergic to scoring. I watched a friendly last year where they had possession for 71 minutes and took 3 shots, one on goal, and drew 0-0 to like a college team or some weekend warrior semi-pro team, who the fuck cares.
It’s a super fun stadium to watch at, though (the first purpose-built-for-pro-soccer stadium in the US) but we’re getting a new bland corporate stadium next year (2022?). I’m sure my tickets will cost 5x as much for, at best, no appreciable improvement in the experience
Half the league is like that. Mainly due to lack of available talent. Seattle managed to win a championship by turtling up against a faster, more dangerous Toronto.
Whitecaps are a disaster. I mean, it doesn't help that 3/4 of their forwards skipped the covid-cup, but goal scoring was not exactly the problem this match.
I want to like the manager, Marc Dos Santos, but I'm starting to wonder if he's a complete fraud.
:so_raven:
0
Options
HerrCronIt that wickedly supports taxationRegistered Userregular
I am kinda hoping crowds never come back to football. I am absolutely loving being able to hear Roy Hodgson screaming at Zaha to "have a go!"
0
Options
TavIrish Minister for DefenceRegistered Userregular
Which team is the most socially progressive, do they have that in MLS, like how in German footy you get the commie teams and the capitalist pig teams
Timbers are pretty progressive (although most teams fans are relatively left leaning I think)
LA Galaxy are the capitalist pigs
Galaxy are the "buy big names " team for sure.
I'm from Vancouver, but I'd say Seattle and Portland are certainly left leaning. And those are our "local" rivals. The distances involved in local MLS rivalries might be a bit surprising to euros.
Edit: Though really, this is all illusory, MLS is single-entity, all the teams are owned in part by the league.
The timbers army (Portland supporters) got into it with MLS because they have an iron front (anti-facist group) symbol on their flag, so they're at least not pro-facist, which is somehow controversial these days.
Pellaeon on
0
Options
TavIrish Minister for DefenceRegistered Userregular
Which team is the most socially progressive, do they have that in MLS, like how in German footy you get the commie teams and the capitalist pig teams
Timbers are pretty progressive (although most teams fans are relatively left leaning I think)
LA Galaxy are the capitalist pigs
Galaxy are the "buy big names " team for sure.
I'm from Vancouver, but I'd say Seattle and Portland are certainly left leaning. And those are our "local" rivals. The distances involved in local MLS rivalries might be a bit surprising to euros.
Edit: Though really, this is all illusory, MLS is single-entity, all the teams are owned in part by the league.
oh yeah, it’s all the fans who have political leanings
Edit: Though really, this is all illusory, MLS is single-entity, all the teams are owned in part by the league.
For some context, this is why I feel the comparison to the Negro League commissioner moving players around is a close comparison to the MLS. The league does get involved with player movement but not to such an up front degree. How do recognised internationals like Beckham, Ibrahimovic, or Hernandez end up in LA? Because the league wants them there.
We just found out how much season tickets are going to run us for Austin when they join the league... Just north of $800 per seat for the sidelines.
Not sure how that compares to other teams, but it seems high.
I’m pretty sure c38 tickets for the rapids run like, dub $400 for right behind the goal
There was a time when good seats were largely affordable for families. But those days are disappearing. It's slowly turning into the pricing nightmare of other North American sports leagues. I remember when I had a seat behind home plate for two years at ~800 per year. The same comparative seat now is probably ~$8000.
Also the general quality of most teams is pretty schizophrenic. Outside of LA and NY, teams are typically only good for a brief season or two before falling to the bottom. Turnover is extremely high and roster quality is mostly awful.
$400 for a season ticket is pretty awesome, I'd pay that
they're practically on the pitch, too
(ignore the lack of crowd, that game was interrupted by like 3+ hours due to lightning so those are the people who stuck around until after midnight to watch the end)
I think there's an argument to be made that Zidane is perhaps the complete footballing package, in the sense that on the pitch he was astounding, probably the best French player of all time and indeed probably the best player of his generation, and as a Manager he has done incredible things, he must be up there as one of the best Managers in the world right now.
And really, how often do you see that? Pretty rare to see Managers who were once top of the world on the pitch. Guardiola is one of the only other ones I can think of, and while he was a top class player, he was no Zidane.
+1
Options
TavIrish Minister for DefenceRegistered Userregular
I think there's an argument to be made that Zidane is perhaps the complete footballing package, in the sense that on the pitch he was astounding, probably the best French player of all time and indeed probably the best player of his generation, and as a Manager he has done incredible things, he must be up there as one of the best Managers in the world right now.
And really, how often do you see that? Pretty rare to see Managers who were once top of the world on the pitch. Guardiola is one of the only other ones I can think of, and while he was a top class player, he was no Zidane.
Yeah I'd agree with this. The only person I could think that would be comparable to Zidane in this situation would be Cruyff. If I was being very generous I'd have Beckenbauer in third but the gap between him and Cruyff/Zizou would massive.
I mean, that sort of says a lot doesn't it, when the only guy you could really compare Zidane to is arguably the most influential figure in the evolution of the modern game
I would love to buy the cheaper seats in the Supporters section, but we're going to occasionally bring the toddler to a game with us, so not really a good option. We're also going in on a group of tickets with my wife's brothers and friends, and they all want seats along the sidelines.
I'm from Vancouver, but I'd say Seattle and Portland are certainly left leaning. And those are our "local" rivals. The distances involved in local MLS rivalries might be a bit surprising to euros.
A random thing I always remember is that it would actually be (slightly) less time for Montreal to fly to Paris for a game than it is for them to fly to LA.
(Also, I haven't been paying attention to MLS for awhile: what did Chicago do to their crest?)
Posts
i mean yeah but those things don't really factor in if someone just wants to get into watching the league
i'd like to clarify that i don't "recommend" following the rapids
ON THE OTHER HAND, Thierry Henry.....
So, maybe Columbus?
There are now 26(!) teams in MLS, which is a lot in one typical soccer league. In this particular tournament, there are 24 teams, because 2 withdrew due to COVID (Dallas, Nashville).
A breakdown of those 24 teams in terms more familiar with typical European soccer:
Teams that are expected to be good every year and spend all the money on the good players: LAFC, LA Galaxy, NYCFC, New York Red Bulls
Teams that actually did win the last few years: Seattle, Atlanta, Toronto, Kansas City, Portland
Teams that have been around, haven't won in a while, but might be good now: Columbus, Chicago, Colorado, Philadelphia, Salt Lake City
Teams that have been around, haven't won in a while, but are not good now: San Jose, DC, Houston, New England, Montreal
Newer MLS teams that are probably good right now: Minnesota, Miami
Newer MLS teams that are very bad right now: Orlando, Cincinnati
Currently an MLS trash fire as an organization: Vancouver
The team that conceded this goal won this game.
16 teams advance out of group play, so with 6 groups it's 2 from each group and the top 4 3rd place teams.
madness
Okay well I might support the Rapids
Ideally I'd support like, the slightly crap but plucky underdog team who could pull it together and do well but it feels a bit like cos there's no relegation or promotion that's just not really the same thing
This used to be Portland, with a long history of association both onfield and backoffice staff, but then it sounds like they might have fucked up Jake Gleeson, one of our best Goalkeeps, so I've gone cool on them.
The Rapids picked up our former national coach for a while, who imported a bunch of NZ players, but then they were woeful.
Fortunately now it appears that Minnesota is raiding our pro player stocks and they're currently running a squad containing 3 internationals, so...
Which team is the most socially progressive, do they have that in MLS, like how in German footy you get the commie teams and the capitalist pig teams
Well, no.
Columbus is a boring-ass team to follow
They’re allergic to scoring. I watched a friendly last year where they had possession for 71 minutes and took 3 shots, one on goal, and drew 0-0 to like a college team or some weekend warrior semi-pro team, who the fuck cares.
It’s a super fun stadium to watch at, though (the first purpose-built-for-pro-soccer stadium in the US) but we’re getting a new bland corporate stadium next year (2022?). I’m sure my tickets will cost 5x as much for, at best, no appreciable improvement in the experience
Whitecaps are a disaster. I mean, it doesn't help that 3/4 of their forwards skipped the covid-cup, but goal scoring was not exactly the problem this match.
I want to like the manager, Marc Dos Santos, but I'm starting to wonder if he's a complete fraud.
Timbers are pretty progressive (although most teams fans are relatively left leaning I think)
LA Galaxy are the capitalist pigs
Galaxy are the "buy big names " team for sure.
I'm from Vancouver, but I'd say Seattle and Portland are certainly left leaning. And those are our "local" rivals. The distances involved in local MLS rivalries might be a bit surprising to euros.
Edit: Though really, this is all illusory, MLS is single-entity, all the teams are owned in part by the league.
oh yeah, it’s all the fans who have political leanings
there’s no MLS St Pauli or Wrexham or whatever
Not sure how that compares to other teams, but it seems high.
I’m pretty sure c38 tickets for the rapids run like, dub $400 for right behind the goal
For some context, this is why I feel the comparison to the Negro League commissioner moving players around is a close comparison to the MLS. The league does get involved with player movement but not to such an up front degree. How do recognised internationals like Beckham, Ibrahimovic, or Hernandez end up in LA? Because the league wants them there.
There was a time when good seats were largely affordable for families. But those days are disappearing. It's slowly turning into the pricing nightmare of other North American sports leagues. I remember when I had a seat behind home plate for two years at ~800 per year. The same comparative seat now is probably ~$8000.
Also the general quality of most teams is pretty schizophrenic. Outside of LA and NY, teams are typically only good for a brief season or two before falling to the bottom. Turnover is extremely high and roster quality is mostly awful.
what an absolute freak of a manager
they're practically on the pitch, too
(ignore the lack of crowd, that game was interrupted by like 3+ hours due to lightning so those are the people who stuck around until after midnight to watch the end)
I think there's an argument to be made that Zidane is perhaps the complete footballing package, in the sense that on the pitch he was astounding, probably the best French player of all time and indeed probably the best player of his generation, and as a Manager he has done incredible things, he must be up there as one of the best Managers in the world right now.
And really, how often do you see that? Pretty rare to see Managers who were once top of the world on the pitch. Guardiola is one of the only other ones I can think of, and while he was a top class player, he was no Zidane.
Yeah I'd agree with this. The only person I could think that would be comparable to Zidane in this situation would be Cruyff. If I was being very generous I'd have Beckenbauer in third but the gap between him and Cruyff/Zizou would massive.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Devastating
Thinking of the new golf clubs he'll buy with his bonus
GOLF
MADRID
A random thing I always remember is that it would actually be (slightly) less time for Montreal to fly to Paris for a game than it is for them to fly to LA.
(Also, I haven't been paying attention to MLS for awhile: what did Chicago do to their crest?)