CPL Must Haves (A Poll)

[matty]

Like the cities list, this is a poll to see what everyone thinks the CPL needs. I'm gonna give a list of 18 things and you pick 5. I will then tally them up. I'd of posted this in the CPL thread but it's at like 115 pages or something by now.

-At least 6 teams to start (7*)
-At least 8 teams to start (10*)
-40% or 30% quota with annual escalation (8)+
-50% Canadian player quota to start (4)+
-60% Canadian player quota to start (2)
-75% Canadian player quota to start
-Conferences (5)
-Single table (3)
-A plan for Pro/Rel (4)
-Local media (1)+
-A TV deal with TSN (14*)
-A TV deal with SportsNet (2*)
-A TV deal with TLN (2*)
-A CCL Spot (9)
-A cross Canada hosted Gold Cup (1)
-A single DP (2)
-2 DP slots
-MLS connections
-The Canadian MLS teams in the league
-A CIS draft
-A NCAA draft
-Minimum ownership requirements with 3 year commitment (4)+
-Minimum stadium requirements (nothing bush league) (4)+
-Academy partnerships (2)+
-Minimum coaching requirements (1)+

If you want to add something please list and I will add it. Also this is not a debate forum, just a poll.

My picks: 8 teams, 60%, conferences, TSN, CCL

*shared votes = .5
+ add on

[Complete Homer]

Add 40% or 30% quota with annual escalation to your list. That's a must have for me, because I think the quality will be quite poor otherwise (as I demonstrated in that wall of text) 

[Gopherbashi]

Teams
Money
Balls
Fans
Moose

[Complete Homer]

My must haves:

- at least 6 teams

- 30-40% domestic quota

- some kind of TSN deal, even if it's just "CPL game of the week" 

[matty]

1 minute ago, Gopherbashi said:

Moose

If you're saying you want to see ex-NFL player and the fastest rising star in pro wrestling Quinn Ojinnaka, I agree. He's entertaining as hell. What position would he play......?

[matty]

2 minutes ago, Complete Homer said:

My must haves:

- at least 6 teams

- 30-40% domestic quota

- some kind of TSN deal, even if it's just "CPL game of the week" 

You got two more picks

[shermanator]

Beer, and lots of it!

[Gopherbashi]

Needs is a strong word:

- *6 teams
- *30-40% quota
- I don't know that conferences are necessary, but an unbalanced schedule would help
- *TV deal on something mainstream

Other things that I think it should have:

- No plan for pro/rel.  There's no one to promote and nowhere to relegate to.
-* CCL spot
- *Single DP (subject to a separate cap for now)
- No Canadian MLS teams

Gold Cup hosting is something I hadn't thought of before now but might be nice.

Stars are my top five.

[baulderdash77]

50% Canadian players

6 teams

TV deal (doesn't matter who it's with), it could be CBC for all I care

1 designated player type

Single table

[mpg_29]

- At least 8 teams to start

-  Conferences 

-  A plan for Pro/Rel

-  A TV deal with TSN 

- A CCL Spot 

 

[matty]

7 minutes ago, Gopherbashi said:

Gold Cup hosting is something I hadn't thought of before now but might be nice.

It'd be a great tool to build up the league. Every city hosting games, the possibility of every team having talent in the tournament.

[Pqhbv]

- 6 teams to start

- TSN

- 40% and escalating

- Single Table

- Gold Cup

[Ansem]

8 teams starts with expansion plans

40% Canadian domestic and escalating 

Sportsnet + TVA Sports

Match of the week on sunday night CBC + SRC for national exposure. Might as well give it away the 1st year.

Single Table

CCL spots with possibility of a 2nd for runner up

[David C.]

1 - Six teams minimum to start. Eight teams max target, to keep level of play as high as possible.

2 - 50% quota. Force a system to employ at least half Canadians, creating opportunities for our players. Otherwise, what's the point?

3 - TV deal of some sort, with a game of the week. TSN most likely.

4 - Minimum ownership financial requirements and minimum (say 3 year) commitment plan. Stability is key.

5 - Minimum stadium requirements, so that nothing is bush league - such as playing surface quality, locker rooms, facilities for fans, facilities for TV broadcasting and media, stuff like that.

[matty]

52 minutes ago, Complete Homer said:

- 30-40% domestic quota

 

13 minutes ago, Ansem said:

40% Canadian domestic and escalating 

 

30 minutes ago, Pqhbv said:

- 40% and escalating

 

49 minutes ago, Gopherbashi said:

- *30-40% quota

 

59 minutes ago, Complete Homer said:

Add 40% or 30% quota with annual escalation to your list. That's a must have for me, because I think the quality will be quite poor otherwise (as I demonstrated in that wall of text) 

Not going to debate but just curious why 40%? If you have a 40% player quota that's 10 Canadians on a team of 25 and risks the possibility of a team playing 0 Canadians in a game.

[Ansem]

4 minutes ago, matty said:

 

 

 

 

Not going to debate but just curious why 40%? If you have a 40% player quota that's 10 Canadians on a team of 25 and risks the possibility of a team playing 0 Canadians in a game.

CPL will most likely have a minimum of Canadian players required to start

[Oranje]

For this to make the most impact to Canadian soccer, i am of the opinion that the League needs:

- Local ties via an Academy to participate in the cities minor leagues. It is expensive to set one up from scratch so I'd accept partnering with an established club. I don't think you can discount the draw of "homers" on the team to bring fans to the park. Also adds to the passion regional rivalries can bring. 

- Minimum coaching levels for coaching staff. I don't know much about how things like this work, but I think it's a must if the CPL is going to foster talent for both players and coaches.

- Local media buy-in. I didn't know about Foothills successes until the day after they lost there was an article in the Metro. If, for example, Shaw shows the matches for out west, an MLS Live-style platform can be created for fans to catch all the matches. National broadcasting is the goal but baby steps are going to get it there.

[baulderdash77]

40% seems random to me.  I don't know why the OP pulled that out of nowhere.

[Complete Homer]

1 hour ago, baulderdash77 said:

40% seems random to me.  I don't know why the OP pulled that out of nowhere.

 

1 hour ago, matty said:

 

 

 

 

Not going to debate but just curious why 40%? If you have a 40% player quota that's 10 Canadians on a team of 25 and risks the possibility of a team playing 0 Canadians in a game.

I'm not sure if you saw my wall of text on why a 50% or higher quota was unwise at the start, but a 30 or 40% quota with escalation might be more feasible. I can repost it if you like...not sure how to link to a specific comment.

Basically the gist is that the player pool, subtracting players who are at too high of a level to consider switching and those at too low of a level to contribute (below 3rd tier in any country except England/Spain/Germany/France - fourth tier for them), you end up stretching the player pool to the extreme to get 50% (with some exceptions...such as my assumption that only 1/4 dual citizens playing in a country where they also had citizenship would switch, since many have pretty loose links to Canada).

It obviously has some assumptions, but I think it is an opitmistic evaluation considering it also assumes that all Canadians are out of contract when the league launches, which is asinine. As such, unless we want to rely on L1O/PLSQ for a huge chunk of the roster, we've got to be more conservative with our initial domestic quota, and allow for gradual escalation

EDIT

But I would certainly support a minimum number of starters as well...say 3 or 4 at start

[Kent]

50% domestics. My argument against increasing quota is that it could potentially lead to degrading the on field product. I would like the league to get better and better each year. I can totally understand the rationale for the growing quota and think a great argument in favour has been made, so I won't be upset if that is what happens.

6 teams (since this seems to be about minimum requirements, 8 would be better, 10 might spread too thin)

TV, I don't really care who, but I'll say TSN because that would be ideal. I am already contradicting my logic on the previous point.

CCL, but I will just add that CPL champion should get the next CCL spot we are awarded. As long as we only have one spot it should be the V cup champs because it enables all D1 teams (and hopefully lower) a chance and also keeps the tourney relevant.

I would say required academies (can be pay to play for the first few years, like 5 or 10). Academies aren't on the list so if that doesn't get added my 5th vote would go to Gold Cup hosting.

[Complete Homer]

2 hours ago, matty said:

You got two more picks

Ah sorry.

Add me to the "minimum ownership commitment period" and "minimum stadium requirements" tallies

[Complete Homer]

19 minutes ago, Kent said:

50% domestics. My argument against increasing quota is that it could potentially lead to degrading the on field product. I would like the league to get better and better each year. I can totally understand the rationale for the growing quota and think a great argument in favour has been made, so I won't be upset if that is what happens.

6 teams (since this seems to be about minimum requirements, 8 would be better, 10 might spread too thin)

TV, I don't really care who, but I'll say TSN because that would be ideal. I am already contradicting my logic on the previous point.

CCL, but I will just add that CPL champion should get the next CCL spot we are awarded. As long as we only have one spot it should be the V cup champs because it enables all D1 teams (and hopefully lower) a chance and also keeps the tourney relevant.

I would say required academies (can be pay to play for the first few years, like 5 or 10). Academies aren't on the list so if that doesn't get added my 5th vote would go to Gold Cup hosting.

Not to derail the thread, but a 5%/year increase is only 1.25 players/year on a 25 man roster. I think there is sufficient supply via "shedding" of lower end prospects from the academy and CIS/L1O/PLSQ standouts to accomplish that. The issue is that those guys aren't well represented in the pool currently - they retire immediately/very young. Once CPL is around, there will be a greater accumulation of guys from those levels in the pool.

There's a little over 20 guys in each age group in each MLS academy. That's 60 every two years being pumped out, but maybe 2-3 get signed. Surely there's some talent in guys #4,5,6,7, etc, and they could supply the escalation while CPL academies get started.

[Kent]

2 minutes ago, Complete Homer said:

Not to derail the thread, but a 5%/year increase is only 1.25 players/year on a 25 man roster. I think there is sufficient supply via "shedding" of lower end prospects from the academy and CIS/L1O/PLSQ standouts to accomplish that. The issue is that those guys aren't well represented in the pool currently - they retire immediately/very young. Once CPL is around, there will be a greater accumulation of guys at those level.

There's a little over 20 guys in each age group in each MLS academy. That's 60 every two years being pumped out, but maybe 2-3 get signed. Surely there's some talent in guys #4,5,6,7, etc, and they could supply the escalation while CPL academies get started.

And conversely, if we start out with a higher quota like 50%, a bunch of those guys get jobs in year 1, and the following year the guys that weren't good enough get their jobs taken by the best of the new class, etc, etc. 5 years down the road, the guys that were MLS rejects and shouldn't have been good enough in year 1, are suddenly seasoned vets and are pushing the younger guys to be better, or maybe even becoming stars of the league and making their way on the national team.

But hey, anything more than a limit of 3 Canadians per roster will be a step up.

[Complete Homer]

Just now, Kent said:

And conversely, if we start out with a higher quota like 50%, a bunch of those guys get jobs in year 1, and the following year the guys that weren't good enough get their jobs taken by the best of the new class, etc, etc. 5 years down the road, the guys that were MLS rejects and shouldn't have been good enough in year 1, are suddenly seasoned vets and are pushing the younger guys to be better, or maybe even becoming stars of the league and making their way on the national team.

But hey, anything more than a limit of 3 Canadians per roster will be a step up.

True, but the quality at launch I think is very important. It's a lot harder to get people to give a league a second chance. I've had people who tuned into TFC in 2007 basically refused to look at MLS for the better part of a decade because the initial quality was so poor. It doesn't matter how much you tell them it has improved, you sound like a fanboy to them. 

If CPL launches with the reputation of being piss poor, that will stick, even among the die-hards. If it gets the reputation of "meh, they were ok" you at least get a second shot with people who are primarily attracted to quality. 

[Kent]

1 hour ago, Complete Homer said:

True, but the quality at launch I think is very important. It's a lot harder to get people to give a league a second chance. I've had people who tuned into TFC in 2007 basically refused to look at MLS for the better part of a decade because the initial quality was so poor. It doesn't matter how much you tell them it has improved, you sound like a fanboy to them. 

If CPL launches with the reputation of being piss poor, that will stick, even among the die-hards. If it gets the reputation of "meh, they were ok" you at least get a second shot with people who are primarily attracted to quality. 

Yeah, that is a potential problem. If it gets a bad reputation like that, you have to hope for V cup and CCL results to show the improvement.