North American Pro Soccer 2015

[dfwabel]

So for some reason tomorrow MLS and the 2 NY teams have floats in the USWNT parade. The SkyBlues and Women's league have floats too and that seems a little more ok but it all still seems inappropriate to me.

Am I missing a established thing where parades have other teams in them? Do the Patriots have a float in the Red Sox parade?

MLS-controlled Soccer United Marketing does the large majority of the work securing licensing, television, royalty and sponsorship revenues for US Soccer (outside of the Nike contract). Women and girls within the supporter's groups will be on the floats, not players.

And they're paying for a portion, so taxpayers aren't.

[Gothamite]

Yeah. Not sure how I feel about that. But if all the teams keep their focus on celebrating the champions, it can be okay.

[crashcarson15]

That seems rather ridiculous. (Especially coming from an Indy fan. )

What’s the point of the whole thing if it’s just a slog to see who can be the least mediocre in November when it matters?

I mean, look at the NHL. Sure, the Blackhawks are probably the class of the league, but what opponent makes you say, “Damn, I gotta tune in for this regular-season game on NBC?” For me, there’s not a single one, outside of my own.

It’s the same way with MLS. Sure, watching the Galaxy should be compelling, but there’s no team they could play that makes me think it’s a must-watch.

And remember, that’s not to say that small-market teams shouldn’t be able to make a run at the title — that’s the beauty of the playoff system — just that it shouldn’t be, “Eh, let’s buy a ticket to the lottery and see what happens.” If you build well, keep your best players, and get the right man in charge, there’s no reason small markets can’t still be winners.

When DC falters in the playoffs, some random-ass team who decides to play well for four games is going to dumb luck their way to MLS Cup. This isn’t good.

[Nyk33]

So for some reason tomorrow MLS and the 2 NY teams have floats in the USWNT parade. The SkyBlues and Women's league have floats too and that seems a little more ok but it all still seems inappropriate to me.

Am I missing a established thing where parades have other teams in them? Do the Patriots have a float in the Red Sox parade?

Oddly enough the Cosmos were offered a float and but they declined.

It's kind of BS at first glance but if MLS is giving money so the parade can still happen then it's okay. Besides how much attention will really be given to the RBNY & NYCFC floats?

[winters in buffalo]

I think I've finally come around on soccer. I watched a bit of the last two men's World Cups, and really got into the women's tournament this year. Right now, I'm watching US vs Haiti in the Gold Cup, and will probably watch the MLS game later tonight. I guess you can say I'm getting hooked.

I find the game much more interesting to watch than some other sports, particularly baseball or basketball. It's certainly a much different game from other major American sports. I'm quite fascinated by what I see as the oddities that make the game unique. At some point, I'll attempt to understand the European game. It seems like it has a strong following, even in the US, but I won't pretend to know much. From my limited knowledge, it seems like the MLS attempts to bridge the gap between the traditional aspects of the game, and what Americans expect a sport to be.

[Still MIGHTY]

Clint Dempsey is the USMNT right now.

Three US goals in two games, all by Deuce.

Not pretty, but 2-0 start to a Gold Cup group. Ho-hum, I guess.

[Gothamite]

Welcome, winters. I hope you enjoy the sport as much as I've come to.

It's tremendously rewarding, largely for all the reasons it's different than other major league sports.

[sportstar1212]

I've always been a casual soccer fan, but over the last year or so, I've become an absolute die-hard fan of the sport. It's gotten to the point now where it's become my second favorite sport (nothing will overtake hockey as my #1, though ) It's fun to watch, easy to watch, and it's almost always on. What more can you want from a sport?

[dfwabel]

Clint Dempsey is the USMNT right now.

Three US goals in two games, all by Deuce.

Not pretty, but 2-0 start to a Gold Cup group. Ho-hum, I guess.

Haiti had chances in the 2nd half with the pace of the game, but no talent to finish.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Clint Dempsey is the USMNT right now.

Three US goals in two games, all by Deuce.

Not pretty, but 2-0 start to a Gold Cup group. Ho-hum, I guess.

Dempsey put it in tonight, but Zardes made it happen. Really nice piece of work.

Altitude might be going through a rough patch. He looks a step behind everyone else. Dempsey and Zardes (or Wondo?) might be worth trying against Panama. Or maybe something even crazier. The group is in hand. Might as well go nuts.

And seconded on the welcome to WiB. I'm still new and learning a lot about soccer, but it's a really fun and rewarding sport to follow. There are so many leagues, competitions, tournaments and fluidity of player movement that there's almost always something interesting happening. The game itself us fun to watch, of course, but it's incredibly unique as a sport compared to everything else in the American landscape.

[Still MIGHTY]

Also, the new FIFA rankings are out, and despite those big wins over Netherlands and Germany, the USMNT actually fell 7 spots to 34th in the world. (They're still tops in CONCACAF, as Costa Rica fell 27 spots to 40th, and Mexico fell 17 spots to 41st)

The reason? Because they're "just" friendlies while those in UEFA were playing Euro qualifiers and South America was playing in Copa America, aka "meaningful" matches.

Whatever, I guess. We'll just keep doing our own thing over this way.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Also, the new FIFA rankings are out, and despite those big wins over Netherlands and Germany, the USMNT actually fell 7 spots to 34th in the world. (They're still tops in CONCACAF, as Costa Rica fell 27 spots to 40th, and Mexico fell 17 spots to 41st)

The reason? Because they're "just" friendlies while those in UEFA were playing Euro qualifiers and South America was playing in Copa America, aka "meaningful" matches.

Whatever, I guess. We'll just keep doing our own thing over this way.

Also, Argentina is #1, despite losing in the Copa America final. It doesn't matter because the rankings are dumb.

[Still MIGHTY]

Also, the new FIFA rankings are out, and despite those big wins over Netherlands and Germany, the USMNT actually fell 7 spots to 34th in the world. (They're still tops in CONCACAF, as Costa Rica fell 27 spots to 40th, and Mexico fell 17 spots to 41st)

The reason? Because they're "just" friendlies while those in UEFA were playing Euro qualifiers and South America was playing in Copa America, aka "meaningful" matches.

Whatever, I guess. We'll just keep doing our own thing over this way.

Also, Argentina is #1, despite losing in the Copa America final. It doesn't matter because the rankings are dumb.

Exactly.

The rankings points system is so flawed. But, like I said, whatever.

[-kj]

Winning other games shouldn't count for points because they lost the final?

[Rockstar Matt]

Also, the new FIFA rankings are out, and despite those big wins over Netherlands and Germany, the USMNT actually fell 7 spots to 34th in the world. (They're still tops in CONCACAF, as Costa Rica fell 27 spots to 40th, and Mexico fell 17 spots to 41st)

The reason? Because they're "just" friendlies while those in UEFA were playing Euro qualifiers and South America was playing in Copa America, aka "meaningful" matches.

Whatever, I guess. We'll just keep doing our own thing over this way.

Why FIFA even have these rankings in the first place, especially if they're such garbage, I'll never understand. It doesn't take an expert, or rankings to realize the US is much better than the 34th best team in the world.

Thank god these rankings have no merit on who actually makes the WC.

EDIT: Crap, spoke too soon. Forgot the rankings for the top 8 teams actually determine seeding for the group draws. Once Blatter's gone, they need to fix this.

[Billy B]

Winning other games shouldn't count for points because they lost the final?

And it counted as a draw for the rankings.

[IanC]

The trouble with including friendlies in the rankings is that not all the top teams use their best team line ups and use these games to experiment with players who are on the fringe of making the national team. That means you might be beating a top nation by name but not beating the top team at full strength. Friendlies are called just that for a reason and to experiment.

In Europe soon less friendlies will be played due to the European nations league set up. It is divided into groups of the top teams and has divisions going down to the lesser nations giving a more competitive match up. This means you will see more matches between say England, Spain, Germany etc than them playing against Gibraltar, Faroe Islands etc. Those lesser nations will be playing more against their level. This cuts out the meaningless friendlies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018%E2%80%9319_UEFA_Nations_League

[Rockstar Matt]

I'd agree with that. That's the value in friendlies anyways, to experiment with players and lineups.

I think the rankings need to value the World Cup matches a bit more though. Germany is still the best team in the world, because you know, they won the World Cup only 12 months ago. It's awful that the US, Mexico and Costa Rica dropped in the rankings yet they all made the last WC, advanced to the R16, with Costa Rica even making the quarters yet you have Romania and Wales in the top 10 despite that neither of them those two have made a World Cup since 1998 (Wales haven't made it in the last 50 years).

[Billy B]

I'd agree with that. That's the value in friendlies anyways, to experiment with players and lineups.

I think the rankings need to value the World Cup matches a bit more though. Germany is still the best team in the world, because you know, they won the World Cup only 12 months ago. It's awful that the US, Mexico and Costa Rica dropped in the rankings yet they all made the last WC, advanced to the R16, with Costa Rica even making the quarters yet you have Romania and Wales in the top 10 despite that neither of them those two have made a World Cup since 1998 (Wales haven't made it in the last 50 years).

Matches lose some of their weight after 12 months, so almost all of the World Cup isn't as important in the ranking. Stuff like your captain retiring and trailing Poland in Euro qualifiers happens in a year. New rankings are out in August and all of the CONCACAF teams have a chance to make moves with games that are weighted more than the Euro qualifiers.

[Still MIGHTY]

Yes, the CONCACAF teams can move up, but how much exactly? The problem with everyone in the federation slipping spots is what does it mean if they beat each other?

The USMNT is now 34th. How much does it actually mean if they beat 40th Costa Rica and 41st Mexico in the final? Especially if it's just a 2-1 or 1-0 game. I think they'd have to have an extremely convincing tournament to make any major jump.

All in all, the rankings don't mean anything at this moment. Now if the USMNT can win this Gold Cup, get a spot in the Confederations Cup, and make some noise in that little 2017 tournament, then they'll jump back up in time for the rankings to matter in terms of World Cup seedlings/pods/etc. The rankings probably shouldn't matter until the end of 2017 going into spring 2018.