Scott Anthony Kerssen 
Member since Apr 23, 2016


Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “The United [super-sized] Soccer League

Still saying it.

The article was a biased article that did not shed any light as to the situation. Instead of an accurate dissection of the NASL's flaws and missteps, the author simply cherry picked some stats and attendance figures and then proceeded to made a series of apples to rutabagas comparisons that had nothing to do with the true weaknesses in the NASL's front offices and mistakes in their approach, i.e. attempting to gain Division 1 status through the courts instead of concentrating on improving their infrastructure.

And the USL remains, in large part, a reserve league for MLS. The waivers that the USSF would have to grant to the league to give it, and many of it's individual teams, Division 2 status (ownership's financial worth, suitable stadiums, etc.) are many. Simply because the NASL ultimately folded due to it's internal mistakes does not make the USL a legitimate Division 2 league, and the lack competition to MLS (for the USL will provide none) will only ultimately hinder the development of a higher level of soccer in this country and delay the day that MLS becomes a league equal in stature to the big 5 leagues in Europe.

The old Appalachian saying goes "Even a blind pig can find an acorn once in a while." The article was the rootings of said pig (figuratively typing, of course). Yeah, the NASL folded. But the article he wrote had absolutely no insight as to why it did so. And it certainly didn't make a case for the USL getting Division 2 status.

Posted by Scott Anthony Kerssen on 12/06/2016 at 3:02 PM

Re: “The United [super-sized] Soccer League

Umm...well done, them, I guess. Not sure how it is relevant to this discussion.

Posted by Scott Anthony Kerssen on 04/27/2016 at 9:34 PM

Re: “The United [super-sized] Soccer League

Yes, they did, Mr. Groth. But that is not a sufficient enough reason to designate USL D2 over NASL. As a singular example, 12 USL teams(over 40% of the league) play in stadiums that lack the capacity required for D2 teams by the USSF.

1 like, 2 dislikes
Posted by Scott Anthony Kerssen on 04/24/2016 at 5:33 PM

Re: “The United [super-sized] Soccer League

My apologies. I attributed some comments by Mr. Rife to Mr. Melchett (?). The commentator regrets the error.

Posted by Scott Anthony Kerssen on 04/24/2016 at 3:20 PM

Re: “The United [super-sized] Soccer League

Readers, I will address both Mr. Turner's and Mr. Melchett's (?)replies here.
Mr. Turner stakes much of his conclusions here on the rapid expansion of USL. As anyone who is well informed about US sports knows, expansion is not a reliable indicator of financial stability. History is strewn with examples of leagues who expanded their way out of viability, including the original NASL, who's demise is, in part, widely attributed to over expansion.

But aside from that, Mr. Turner seems to imply that the expansion is a by-product of the popularity or the business models of the respective leagues. What he fails to mention is that it is more expensive to field a division 2 team than a division 3 team. The financial and infrastructure commitments, as set down by the United States Soccer Federation (the governing body of soccer in the USA)are much greater for the NASL than the USL (minimum stadium size for D3, 1000, minimum stadium size for D2, 5000; minimum financial worth of principal owner for D3, $10 Million, for D2, $20 Million) In short, one of the main reasons that the USL is expanding faster is simply because it is cheaper.

And in Mr. Turner's comparison of iconic teams, he compares NASL teams to MLS teams. Hardly relevant to a discussion of NASL versus USL, especially when you consider that the USL reserve teams of the MLS teams he names (Seattle 2221 fans per match, LA Galaxy 969, NY Red Bulls 595) have lower per match attendance figures that the bottom attended team of the NASL (Edmonton 2889).

The most telling argument AGAINST USL getting D2 status over NASL is mentioned almost as an aside in Misters Turner's and Melchett's (?) comments, but never expanded upon. It is that, for all practical purposes, the USL is a Reserve League.

21 out of the 29 USL teams are contractually linked by players and formal financial arrangements to MLS clubs. Mr. Melchett (?), 9 USL clubs, over 1/3 of the league, are not even eligible to compete in the US Open Cup, because they are either primarily owned by and/or controlled by MLS clubs. Most major soccer playing countries do not designate their reserve team leagues as D2.

Mr. Turner, your conclusion to make the USL the Division 2 league over NASL is the rough equivalent, in your native country,of your making the FA Premier Reserve League the D2 league over the Football League Championship.

Keeping the NASL at D2 status helps to insure that there remains a healthy competition between leagues, clubs and players, as opposed to a league that is, by design, for the most part noncompetitive against the D1 league, MLS.

Facts are indeed facts. But the way they are chosen and presented are the difference between a fair presentation of the merits of each side and a biased case designed to convert readers to your conclusions rather than give them the tools to form their own. As a result, it is left for me (and perhaps others) to present the other side.

See? I told you it would take another article to debunk yours.

2 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Scott Anthony Kerssen on 04/24/2016 at 2:43 PM

Re: “The United [super-sized] Soccer League

I am sorry to have to make these comments, but this is one of the most ludicrous and poorly researched articles on the current professional soccer scene that I have ever seen. It is comprised of biased arguments filled with cherry-picked facts. The two most egregious are the comparisons of relative league stability and attendance. You mention the NASL's team losses but fail to mention that USL has lost 7 teams in those same 5 years with another "on hiatus" for the coming season. You choose the "traditionally popular" NASL teams attendance figures and compare them to the best figures you can find from USL. But you fail to mention that The NASL averaged 5913 fans per match, compared to the USL average of 3369 fans per match. By the way, the lowest drawing team in the NASL, FC Edmonton, averaged 2889 fans per match in 2015, while in the same year, the USL had 11 out of it's 24 teams averaging less than Edmonton with 4 USL teams averaging only in the hundreds. Or to put it succinctly, nearly half of the USL averaged less fans per match than the lowest drawing NASL team. To completely rip apart this article would take an article just as long. Readers, you have been done a disservice by Mr. Turner's article. Mr. Turner, you owe your readers a fairer and more accurate article then the one above.

4 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Scott Anthony Kerssen on 04/23/2016 at 11:41 PM

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

All content © Copyright 2017, The Colorado Springs Independent

Website powered by Foundation