![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
2 items on the article: USASA amateur leagues are attributed pyramid level 5(or lower if the league has internal promotion/relegation). Secondly, the UPSL appears to have internal promotion and relegation, not promotion up to the pro division and relegation down to the championship division. Both divisions are within the UPSL, therefore the promotion/relegation is 'internal'. Loftybunch1 ( talk) 03:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
USASA leagues are NOT "attriibuted" to any pyramid level at this time. US Soccer only recognized Tier I-III. Until there is an official pyramid system this category should be left blank. TheScottDL ( talk) 18:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I understand your point. However, if the standards are that a level should not be listed unless the league is USSF sanctioned, then NPSL and PDL would not have a level listed, but the standard is that they do, and they're level 4. Further, every other USASA elite league with a wiki is defined as division 5, except for the league in Pennsylvania. The majority believe these leagues should not list a de facto level, then the standard should be changed in the footy talk page, but the standard has not been changed, and this league is de facto division 5. Loftybunch1 ( talk) 23:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I have to agree with LoftyBunch1. It is normal to include the defacto level even though many league pages omit this. Omitting would sets precedent that level should be omitted from npsl/pdl/asl. Demitrius39 ( talk) 01:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Loftybunch1: There has been an edit war going on about whether to include a level for UPSL, and if so, what it should be. I'd like to kick off a discussion, keep the discussion going for at least a week, and then reach a consensus and stick with that consensus unless there are is significant new information. My opinion on this is that we should not include a level because levels are unofficial, liable to change, and subjective. However if others can cite significant, reliable, independent, third-party coverage documenting an agreed upon level for UPSL then I'll endorse that side. Bashum104 ( talk) 00:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Bashum104: Hi Bashum, lets discuss. I do think a distinction has to be made between the level of play of UPSL teams and PDL/NPSL teams. It is well recorded that top college talent and MLS prospects play in the PDL (66 PDL players drafted in 2018) [1], and many NPSL players are often taken in the MLS draft most years (3 in 2016, 6 in 2017) [2] [3]. The UPSL, which is very young, has no such recorded history. Here are a couple of articles that reference UPSL as being defacto 5th level [4] [5]. I would also call attention to open cup qualification [6] in that NPSL and PDL are expressly granted a large number of tournament bids while UPSL qualifies through local qualifiers, and only qualified 2-3 teams. The last point I'd call attention to is the barrier to entry in each league [7]. All that being said, I agree the assignment of level is subjective. My perception is that the public has viewed PDL and NPSL as being defacto division 4 for a long time for their teams' accomplishments on the field and for their players' pedigrees, and leagues spring up claiming to be the same caliber as these two other leagues because they want to claim to be so, making no equivalent financial investment and attracting few equivalent talent players. Loftybunch1 ( talk) 04:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Bashum104: Why did you remove the Las Vegas teams? SportsFan007 ( talk) 21:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007
@ Bashum104: Where were the Summerlin Red Rocks FC removed? SportsFan007 ( talk) 05:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Anaheim FC. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 03:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Evergreen FC which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 03:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Soul2Sole FC and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 2#Soul2Sole FC until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,
Rosguill
talk
23:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
The UPSL left the USASA but apparently still qualify for the Open Cup via the USASA?
In terms of USOC qualifying, they are considered "open division" (which is a catch-all for everything below Div III professional). Within the Open Division, there's 3 qualifying routes- either through "National league track qualifying", or through one of two USASA competitions- The Winner of the USASA NAC, or as a "Local Qualifyer" through the USASA regional qualifiers. They are specifically no longer eligible for the NAC. It appears that UPSL would meet the requirements for "National league track qualifying", but instead their teams enter through USASA local/regional qualifying alongside the various USASA leagues teams. NISA Nation teams do so as well, but it make sense for NISA-N given that in that case the parent organization, NISA, has dual status, both a direct status with USASA as a "Multi state league" and with the USSF as a professional league. Does UPSL still have an official connection or agreement to/with USASA for this or does the USSF force the USASA to allow it? I thought I had read at one point, somewhere, that UPSL was choosing not to use their status as a National League so that their vast membership could choose individually to enter- or not- the qualifying process rather than base entry on just their limited playoffs - but of course I can't re-find that article now. Gecko G ( talk) 18:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
2 items on the article: USASA amateur leagues are attributed pyramid level 5(or lower if the league has internal promotion/relegation). Secondly, the UPSL appears to have internal promotion and relegation, not promotion up to the pro division and relegation down to the championship division. Both divisions are within the UPSL, therefore the promotion/relegation is 'internal'. Loftybunch1 ( talk) 03:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
USASA leagues are NOT "attriibuted" to any pyramid level at this time. US Soccer only recognized Tier I-III. Until there is an official pyramid system this category should be left blank. TheScottDL ( talk) 18:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I understand your point. However, if the standards are that a level should not be listed unless the league is USSF sanctioned, then NPSL and PDL would not have a level listed, but the standard is that they do, and they're level 4. Further, every other USASA elite league with a wiki is defined as division 5, except for the league in Pennsylvania. The majority believe these leagues should not list a de facto level, then the standard should be changed in the footy talk page, but the standard has not been changed, and this league is de facto division 5. Loftybunch1 ( talk) 23:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I have to agree with LoftyBunch1. It is normal to include the defacto level even though many league pages omit this. Omitting would sets precedent that level should be omitted from npsl/pdl/asl. Demitrius39 ( talk) 01:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Loftybunch1: There has been an edit war going on about whether to include a level for UPSL, and if so, what it should be. I'd like to kick off a discussion, keep the discussion going for at least a week, and then reach a consensus and stick with that consensus unless there are is significant new information. My opinion on this is that we should not include a level because levels are unofficial, liable to change, and subjective. However if others can cite significant, reliable, independent, third-party coverage documenting an agreed upon level for UPSL then I'll endorse that side. Bashum104 ( talk) 00:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Bashum104: Hi Bashum, lets discuss. I do think a distinction has to be made between the level of play of UPSL teams and PDL/NPSL teams. It is well recorded that top college talent and MLS prospects play in the PDL (66 PDL players drafted in 2018) [1], and many NPSL players are often taken in the MLS draft most years (3 in 2016, 6 in 2017) [2] [3]. The UPSL, which is very young, has no such recorded history. Here are a couple of articles that reference UPSL as being defacto 5th level [4] [5]. I would also call attention to open cup qualification [6] in that NPSL and PDL are expressly granted a large number of tournament bids while UPSL qualifies through local qualifiers, and only qualified 2-3 teams. The last point I'd call attention to is the barrier to entry in each league [7]. All that being said, I agree the assignment of level is subjective. My perception is that the public has viewed PDL and NPSL as being defacto division 4 for a long time for their teams' accomplishments on the field and for their players' pedigrees, and leagues spring up claiming to be the same caliber as these two other leagues because they want to claim to be so, making no equivalent financial investment and attracting few equivalent talent players. Loftybunch1 ( talk) 04:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Bashum104: Why did you remove the Las Vegas teams? SportsFan007 ( talk) 21:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007
@ Bashum104: Where were the Summerlin Red Rocks FC removed? SportsFan007 ( talk) 05:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Anaheim FC. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 03:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Evergreen FC which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 03:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Soul2Sole FC and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 2#Soul2Sole FC until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,
Rosguill
talk
23:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
The UPSL left the USASA but apparently still qualify for the Open Cup via the USASA?
In terms of USOC qualifying, they are considered "open division" (which is a catch-all for everything below Div III professional). Within the Open Division, there's 3 qualifying routes- either through "National league track qualifying", or through one of two USASA competitions- The Winner of the USASA NAC, or as a "Local Qualifyer" through the USASA regional qualifiers. They are specifically no longer eligible for the NAC. It appears that UPSL would meet the requirements for "National league track qualifying", but instead their teams enter through USASA local/regional qualifying alongside the various USASA leagues teams. NISA Nation teams do so as well, but it make sense for NISA-N given that in that case the parent organization, NISA, has dual status, both a direct status with USASA as a "Multi state league" and with the USSF as a professional league. Does UPSL still have an official connection or agreement to/with USASA for this or does the USSF force the USASA to allow it? I thought I had read at one point, somewhere, that UPSL was choosing not to use their status as a National League so that their vast membership could choose individually to enter- or not- the qualifying process rather than base entry on just their limited playoffs - but of course I can't re-find that article now. Gecko G ( talk) 18:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)