Talk:Soccer Bowl

message: Hey, I changed the 1977 attendance to 35,548. I don't where the previous figure was from (~23k), but here are my sources:
http://www.pgepark.com/stadium/years/
http://www.oregonlive.com/timbers/index.ssf?/timbers/oregonian/sp_41socc25.frame
--Scaryice 08:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

message: The New York Cosmos (1970-1985) won five titles ('72, '77, '78, '80, & '82) in the old NASL. The New York Cosmos (2010) of the current NASL, is a rebirth of the old club, however it is still a different club and won the 2013 Soccer Bowl. Do not give the new one the credit for the old one's titles, as they are technically different teams. The same goes for Tampa Bay, but that seems to be less of an issue. Elisfkc (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Elisfkc.  The articles about the New York Cosmos are somewhat written poorly and continuously give wrong information that people read and actually believe it to be true. I am not going to get into the old debate which many do not want to accept. I am going to stick to what the world recognizes.  The top media resources recognize the club as one.  They are one.  You may argue franchise, teams, etc.  Still, the club itself is one.  The club has won six NASL Championships (Soccer Bowls). And this is written throughout accredited national and international media.  NYCWikiKid (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: User:NYCWikiKid, the team is recognized as a rebirth, not as the same club. They should not be recognized as having won the Soccer Bowl six times, as the organization has not won 6 championships. I'm not going to change it, because I don't want to start an edit war and this is your team. However, if you keep changing stuff for the teams that I am listed as working on for the WikiProject Football/United States and Canada task force, specifically the Template:Sporting Kansas City, and putting incorrect information and such on there, I will change it back to the 5 titles for the old NYCosmos and the 1 for the current NYCosmos. I am trying to make a truce here before any edit wars start. Elisfkc (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Hi Eliskfc.  I am just seeing this post.  Let's start off on the right side of things as I think you may be getting a little ahead.  To begin the Cosmos, or any team is not my team in the way you are making this out to be.  I am putting facts, without opinion. The Sporting KC discussion is something for that article (template), but just to let you know what ever upgrades in details I have made there have only been in the best interest of the club, nothing less.  And I don't put incorrect information as you are suggesting.  I verify things over and over again before writing anything here.  There is no need to make a truce as I don't have anything against you.  In fact this is the first occasion(s) we have ever spoken.  Honestly, I thought we were having a constructive conversation.  So again, no truce as there is nothing from my behalf that would imply animosity.  You do have my support for collaboration.  With regard to the Cosmos, again, you might be misinformed about the full history of the club (I say this in a polite way without any intent to disrespect).  The club has won six titles.  Really, don't misinterpret the word rebirth as distinct.  It means that the club is reestablished. Cheers NYCWikiKid (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Tampa Bay Rowdies and New York Cosmos

message: It appears that the NASL no longer refers to the game as the Soccer Bowl - the league's website and the official event logos refer to the playoffs as the "Championship", the game as the "Championship Final" and the trophy itself as the "Soccer Bowl Trophy".  I'm going to change the article to reflect this unless anyone has a source to the contrary.  SixFourThree (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name? 

message: Since the future of the modern North American Soccer League remains uncertain as of June 2018, I personally think that any action should be delayed for the time being. The obvious reason being, that if the NASL does fold, which seems likely at this point, there won't be a large amount of expansion to the page, only enhancement to the existing information. At the same time, the notion of separating them is not without merit. Creativewill (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   Support: while it carries the same legacy, it's a different tournament for a legally separate league. This article should be a disambigation page for the old NASL, new NASL, as well as the college soccer version of the Soccer Bowl from the late 1940s to early 1950s. Quidster4040 (talk) 03:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Support anything that makes clear that the two NASLs ants not the same league, and the obviously promotional nature of previous editors are eliminated. oknazevad (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   Support: The idea of a disambigation page does make sense. Perhaps because I lived through both NASLs (and the original was a big part of my adolescence) that I wasn't looking at this Soccer Bowl question with a "long view" when I first posted on this topic last June. Spitting with a disamb now, will offer to some teenager 80 years on, an easier to understand vignette of the various iterations of Soccer Bowl, however many there may be by that time. Cheers to all, -Creativewill (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting the Soccer Bowl into two pages  

message: The change in format to the table on 2 May 2021 resulted in several columns in the previous table being left out, including the television, MVP, and Notes columns. These columns contained interesting information. Jeff in CA (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed table format left out columns