Talk:USSF Division 2 Professional League

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Inaugural teams[edit]

Official league page?[edit]

Is there an official page for the league? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be there closest we'll get. http://www.ussoccer.com/USSF-D2-Pro-League/USSF-D2-Pro-League.aspx --Blackbox77 (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who moved the page without discussing?[edit]

Everything I've read says USSF-D2 or USSF Division 2. Have never seen it suffixed with Professional League. Also, you now have a number of nested redirects. Care to discuss now? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are correct - I should have made a note of it here on the discussion page. The first reference of the article (U.S. Soccer Division 2 Professional League Schedule Announced) has been updated showing when U.S. Soccer released the season's schedule, they also updated the league name to USSF Division 2 Professional League (or D2 Pro League in their short hand). There also seems to be a somewhat official league home page here. --Blackbox77 (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this is being overly pedantic, but the actual name of the league is the USSF Division-2 Professional League or D-2 Pro League for short, with the dashes in Division-2 and D-2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DemonJuice (talk • contribs) 21:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to http://www.ussoccer.com/USSF-D2-Pro-League/USSF-D2-Pro-League.aspx it is with the dash before the 2. The NASL and USL conference pages also have the dash. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look like too many others have an opinion. Can we move this to include the dash? DemonJuice (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but we should take care to catch anything that redirects here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it matters all that much. I say just leave it where it is. No point in making work for ourselves. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiousity, if we were to move it, would the correct form be a hyphen (D-2) and em-dash (D—2) or an en-dash (D–2)? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha... I didn't even think about that. I have no idea. DemonJuice (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to believe it would be the endash (D–2), but I don't know that the Wikipedia:Manual of Style has anything to offer either: WP:HYPHEN WP:DASH. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through the hyphen and dash sections and I think Division-2 is a compound adjective, describing the league, making it a hyphen. DemonJuice (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't look through it recently, but thing a hyphen is enough. BTW: Thanks for doing the results the last few game nights. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conference and Pod tables[edit]

What I'd like to see is that the backgrounds of the different conferences be different colours. Say blue for USL and red for NASL. Then redesign the pods so that each team has a cell, which is easy enough to do, and each cell could be coloured with the appropriate conference colour. I just don't like Wikitable formatting and I'm no good at it. If anyone wants to try it, go ahead. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are colors really necessary? Will they help further the understanding of the subject matter, or is the coloring just for coloring sake? Not that I'm opposed, but there really should be a reason for it. I'm also not sure if we should be arbitrarily assigning a color is the right course. If colors are the direction you want to go, I would think you'd want to use the blue from NASLs logo and green from USL's logo to colorize the conferences. I'm also not sure what you mean with coloring the pods. Since the pods cross the conference lines, are you talking about putting each team into its own cell and colorizing that sell to match their conference, or do you want to change the color of the text? --Bobblehead (rants) 19:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes colours will help understand the subject matter. It will distinguish the conference associations within the pods. I'm talking about adding colour to the cell background. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So something like:
Pod Team
1 NSC Minnesota Stars Portland Timbers A.C. St. Louis Vancouver Whitecaps FC
Something cleaner might be:
Pod Team
1 NSC Minnesota Stars · Portland Timbers · A.C. St. Louis · Vancouver Whitecaps
--Bobblehead (rants) 19:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The former unless you can over-ride the link-color for pages already visited. Then colouring the the background of the conference headers should be sufficient. I think I can figure out a colour scheme that might work, but it will have to wait until this evening (Pacific time). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Standings[edit]

Since this is a temporary league, should we put the standings right on the page instead of creating a separate page for this season? Mtndrums (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we must make sure that the archive doesn't get lost if/when we get a new league with a new name in 2011. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I plan on having the link to this page from the USL 2010 season page, and if necessary once everything from 2011 is sorted, we can move the standings to the respective pages. Mtndrums (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have now put the standings and results tables in. Please check the results tables over for any typos (especially putting TBY for TAM, TBY is my personal abbreviation, but TAM seems to be the logical way to go). Mtndrums (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think an additional 'overall' standings table template should be created, similar to MLS', since playoff seeds 3 through 8 are determined by the overall standings and not the conference standings. Only the conference winner is guaranteed a playoff spot. I'd do it but I don't know how to make templates. DemonJuice (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easier to modify the existing templates. Add a "Conference leader" highlighting and then indicate the remaining playoff teams using the existing colour, or a slightly modified one similar to the way European leagues indicate those who make the Champion's league and those who qualify for the Champion's cup. I can work on it later today, although it won't make much sense until we're well into the season. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds perfect. DemonJuice (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've updated the templates. I really like the templates used in other leagues but they require template pages for each team and there are issues about inclusion of rules that are not in use in the USSF-D2. they automatically add up the wins, losses, and draws to come up with the total games played. They also have a few other nice features. I've compacted the statistics into rows to make it easier to keep together and see more on a single page. I would like to use official conference colours for each header, but will have to see if I can find out what those are later. The Green and Blue used in the templates are a little over-powering. By this weekend, we should see how the templates and "playoff positions" work better. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! I have a minor problem, though. When the template is put on a team's season page it highlights the entire row for that team in light blue, losing the light green playoff highlighting. So right now, if you go to 2010 Portland Timbers season and look at the tables, it's not immediately apparent that Portland is in one of the playoff spots because the entire Portland row has been highlighted light blue. Can you change the team-specific highlight so that it doesn't overwrite the background color of the first column (POS)? And even maybe make it so that the playoff positions ONLY highlight the first column and take precedence over the team specific background color (such as is done for the MLS tables)? DemonJuice (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why it's happening, not sure that what I did is an actual fix or not. Feel free to take a look and let me know. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. Thank you! DemonJuice (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also think it looks pretty good- As for the MLS article we've decided to move away from the "details" section and go back to the direct linking (like the NHL-NBA-MLB), we're considering getting rid of coloring as it has some accessibility issues. Morry32 (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Totally forgot that the officials may want to check out the articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pods[edit]

The description for the pods is incomplete. 4 games x 3 in-pod-opponents + 2 games x 8 out-of-pod-opponents = 12 + 16 = 28 games, not 30. The explanation is missing the fact that each team is paired with a team outside their pod for an additional home and away series to get the 30 games. DemonJuice (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then add it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Do we want some sort of indication of which out-of-pod side each team is paired with or is the schedule sufficient for that? DemonJuice (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frustrating results[edit]

USSF is offering http://www.ussoccer.com/USSF-D2-Pro-League/USSF-D2-Pro-League/Schedule/2010-Schedule.aspx as the "Schedule/Results" page. There aren't any results there. I had to go to individual teams to pull down the results. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I had to do the same thing to get the starting lineups and subs and goalscorers for each game this weekend. I hope they get their act together soon! --JonBroxton (talk) 05:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the NASL site has a results page they are updating that even includes attendances: ( http://www.nasl.com/schedule/year/2010/time_zone/0 ) DemonJuice (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

League Rules[edit]

FYI, I've located rules for the league in a RailHawks program online: http://carolinarailhawks.com/uploads/assets/CAROLINA/2010MediaGuide/2010MediaGuidePages48-60.pdf

TEAM-STANDINGS TIE-BREAKING PROCEDURES

The team awarded the highest position in the standings will be the team with the greatest number of points (3 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, 0 points for a loss). In the event that two teams finish the regular season with an equal number of points, the following system will be used to break the tie:

  1. The highest position shall be awarded to the team with the better win/loss record in current regular season games against all other teams equal in points. (head-to-head competition)
  2. If the teams are still equal in the standings, the highest position shall be awarded to the team with the greater goal difference against all other teams during the regular season. (goal differential)
  3. If the teams are still equal in the standings, the highest position shall be awarded to the team scoring the greatest number of total goals against all other teams during the regular season. (total goals)
  4. If the teams are still equal in the standings, the procedures described in this section shall be applied only to games played on the road by each team against all other teams during the regular season. (road 1-3)
  5. If the teams are still equal in the standings, the procedures described in this section shall be applied only to games played at home by each team against all other teams during the regular season. (home 1-3)
  6. If the teams are still equal in the standings, the highest position in the standings shall be deter- mined by the toss of a coin.

Just an FYI, the NASL has put up a page that purports to list the tie-breaker rules here: [1]. You'll notice that it is very incomplete compared to the media guide (it has no provisions for overall goal difference being equal nor does it explain how head-to-head works in a 3-way tie) and adds in a curious 2nd tie-breaker: head-to-head goal difference. How exactly would head-to-head goal difference work in a 3-way tie where two of the teams played each other 4 times each while the third team only played the others twice each? It doesn't make sense and is in contradiction to the tie-breaker rules in the RailHawks media guide. Anyway, just thought I'd bring that up. I've emailed the leagues and the USSF to try to get clarification and will post back here if I get a response, though I'm not holding my breath. DemonJuice (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've seen the rules in the RailHawks' media guide in one other location (can't for the life of me remember where). I don't know how likely it will be to accommodate a two- or three-way tie on the last day of the season though. It seems like the teams are starting to spread out. With the exception of this last weekend, I haven't really needed to look at the head-to-head match-ups much lately. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a log jam down there so I don't think a 3-way tie at the end is too far-fetched. Regardless, what is more likely to be an issue at the end is the goal difference tie-breaker: H2H goal difference then overall goal difference (NASL page) vs. overall goal difference only (media guide). I still contend that H2H goal difference makes so sense if there's a 3-way tie. I guess we'll find out on way or another. Or actually we probably won't. DemonJuice (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My annoying self got the NASL to change their page. It now matches the media guide's tie-breaker rules exactly. DemonJuice (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. Can you get them up to update the results and standings sooner too? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Future[edit]

As this is going to be the only season of USSF Division 2, what happens the following season? Do the teams go into their respective USL or NASL competitions? It may be an obvious question but I'm from the UK and I have no idea! Thanks, ciao! db1987db (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions have not concluded (possibly have not commenced) as to what will occur next season. The teams aligned with the NASL outnumber those aligned with the USL. Two teams are leaving to move to the first division MLS. This is not a promotion since that concept does not exist in the MLS or other divisions. One from each of the NASL and USL camps. It's unlikely that the two leagues will operate separately and it's unlikely that the NASL group will play under the USL's rules. It's also unlikely that the USL-owned teams will have the funds to play independently as part of the NASL. So a compromise may have to be made to play in the summer of 2011 but we assume that the USSF will not be running the league (unless it makes them some money). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dates[edit]

MOS:DATE, specifically WP:DATERET indicates:

  • If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic.
  • The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic. Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor".

There are four date formats in use in this article and its related templates:

  1. Year only, used in one table,
  2. American long date format used in the body copy,
  3. ISO 8601 short date with year (yyyy-mm-dd) used in the conference tables, and the references, and
  4. American short date without year (Mmm d) used in the football league season table.

The addition of American long date in a match reports over the ISO 8601 format is adding another format which shouldn't be done. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the article is about an American-sanctioned league, it is likely to be viewed by a great many non-Americans and non-Canadians and consideration should be made for those viewing the page as well. International long date format is d month yyyy, and American date formats may be initially confusing to them (but they'll get over it). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you're not interested in discussing this. The facts are simple WP:DATERET implies that the ISO 8601 date should be used rather than long dates. It doesn't matte what other pages do, only what this article has settled-on. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree here. Someone's date preference or what is done in other articles means nothing. It's all about what is already established in the article. DemonJuice (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Walter, while I agree with your position on this issue and think that the date precedent set in the page should remain, your last edit summary was out of order. You seem to have this habit of accusing anyone who disagrees with you of vandalism, and it's bad form. You simply have a difference of opinion on how to present dates. Khan isn't adding false stats or nonsense to the page. His revert of your edit was no more vandalism than yours was of his. You really need to watch that. --JonBroxton (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not bad form. This isn't the first time the Khan singh made the edit without discussing. He's completely ignoring the discussion even though he was pointed here. It is therefore vandalism. I am at my 3RR limit so feel free to change it however you want when he comes back and makes the change again. I will simply revert it in the future when my limit is not in jeopardy. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand your position though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll revert his changes to keep the standard because, like I said, I think you are 100% right on this. I just wish you would be a little less reactionary with your edits and your summaries and whatnot, that's all, because you're a good and valuable editor and I keep seeing you getting into arguments when they could be so easily avoided by just being a little less aggressive. --JonBroxton (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Soccer Pyramid[edit]

Heading: according to the Canadian Soccer Pyramid article, both MLS and USSF Division 2 share the top level of the pyramid.Jcmenal (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those leagues are sanctioned by the USSF and as such are part of the US soccer pyramid. They merely have Canadian teams in them. The Canadian Soccer Federation does not have a first division. Their second division is based primarily in Ontario. Third division in BC. There's also the USL development league that is shared between Canada and the US. The CSF is primarily concerned with the national teams. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, however, the Canadian clubs playing in the MLS and USSF D-2 have their own competition to determinate the qualifier for CONCACAF Champions League, such competition is sanctioned by CSA not by USSF.Jcmenal (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The CSF actually, and you're right they're not sanctioned by the USSF, but the sentence doesn't mention the Canadian Championship. It currently reads: "The D2 Pro League is the second tier of the American and Canadian soccer pyramids below Major League Soccer." Your change was "The D2 Pro League is the second tier of the American soccer pyramid below Major League Soccer, and the first tier of the Canadian soccer pyramid along Major League Soccer." which isn't quite accurate, but the way it reads now isn't accurate either, but slightly better. Since the "second division" of the CSF isn't really a second division, it's a regional league life the PCS is. If the teams inter-played, they would be closer than their second- and third-division labels give them. At this point, players just want to play close to home. There are many players in the PCSL who didn't want to travel with the Whitecaps and rather than play in the "official" second division, they drop down to the PCSL. Perhaps the change should be: "The D2 Pro League is the second tier of the American soccer pyramids below Major League Soccer with the involvement of two Canadian teams.". Also the CSF does not officially approve or disapprove of the three teams playing the USSF sanctioned leagues. So technically the Canadian second division is really its first since there is no sanctioning of TFC, the Impact or the Whitecaps. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
U right, probably with the future inclusion of the Edmonton FC the Canadian Championship will become a more national competition than the CSL or any other Canadian competition.Jcmenal (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And Ottawa keeps threatening to field a team, if they get a stadium. I've asked for actual references to back-up CSF support for the USSF divisions since the CSF web site is really bad. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Playoff structure[edit]

During this evening's Whitecaps v Timbers match I heard that away goals rule will not be applied to the series. Does anyone know if the tie-breaking procedure will be extra time with penalties or something else? This information should be added to the relevant section of the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's buried at the bottom of this article:

The playoffs consist of a two-leg, aggregate goals series in the first round, semifinals and finals. Away goals will not be considered a tie-breaker in the aggregate goal series. If teams are tied on aggregate goals after the conclusion of the second leg, they will play two 15 minute overtime periods. Penalty kicks will follow overtime if the teams have not broken the deadlock.

DemonJuice (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow cards in playoff match results[edit]

Can we not do yellow cards in the playoff match results? If the playoffs had their own article, sure, but IMO they are overkill here. Just red cards, goals and penalty shootout results in this article. What do you guys think? DemonJuice (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I was simply following the example of the first two matches by adding the Timbers v Whitecaps cards. I think it's from the other tournaments where they record cards and subs as well, but it isn't necessary. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed them. If someone has a good reason or precedent for restoring, feel free to bring it up. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USSF_Division_2_Professional_League&oldid=1199003202"