Talk:United States soccer league system

message: The map from 2013 was made with an unknown program and would be difficult to edit. I considered using the :Template:Location map+ to show all the teams and add all the new ones; however, I don't like that you can't easily view a full size picture from the thumbnail (if someone knows how to do this please let me know. So I created User:Trödel/soccer_map using Location map+ and then took a screenshot of the results so we could at least have a good size picture. Not perfectly happy with it so feel free to edit if you have some suggestions. Also the User:Trödel/soccer_map can be transcluded if you don't like the image - (see image to right - I've done a little editing adding parameters to make that work but if it's going to be transcluded it needs more work). --Trödel 19:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that on 15:11, 10 July 2018‎, an anonymous user at 161.142.40.7 removed the map. There didn't seem to be a conscious decision for this, so I took Trodel's map, updated it, and put it back. Smilingra (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you Smilingra --Trödel 15:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating professional team map 

message: Hi everyone,
An edit was made to add two levels of the UPSL to the amateur table, a top level in parallel with PDL and NPSL and a second level in parallel with the USASA elite amateur leagues. My view has been that UPSL is not parallel with PDL or NPSL (not that this couldn't change) for a couple of reasons, one of which is the berth status of UPSL teams in the open cup, and another of which is that UPSL is explicitly an elite amateur league (in addition to being a national affiliate), unlike the PDL or NPSL. I am starting this discussion to have the conversation of what the fairest current status of the UPSL is. I would also preface this discussion by noting that I have seen several UPSL related edits in the UPSL page and on team pages that I would describe as promotional, and the league and teams would have a vested interest in relative equity with the two de-facto division 4 leagues (I believe the edits I'm recalling would best be described as self-promotional, but that is just speculation). Let's have this discussion to establish a consensus view of the UPSL. Loftybunch1 (talk) 03:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly am not even sure that it's that important, since there is no official sanctioning past the third division. I do think it is a mistake to consider them on the equivalent level as NPSL and PDL, especially in regards to the Open Cup entrance. It might merit some inclusion in the table, but not where it was before. Jay eyem (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tried to address your concerns - would suggest you edit it rather than revert.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrlandoCityFan (talk • contribs) 15:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  UPSL place in the amateur table 

message: USL League Two IS NOT an amatuer league, it is a developmental league, and NPSL is equal with it. SportsFan007 (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Any league that does not pay its players is an amateur league. Regardless, could you explain in more detail why it should be listed along with the professionally sanctioned leagues, in addition to in the table with the leagues sanctioned by USASA. BLAIXX 00:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

text: If the canadian pyramids lists them, why shouldn't the us pyramid? SportsFan007 (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not really the best logic you should use when editing Wikipedia. Just because you see something in one place, does not necessarily mean it's correct – Wikipedia does have errors. In this specific case, the Canadian and US pyramid articles have different layouts. The Canadian article has a single table where the US article is subdivided into professional and amateur sections. In general it is best to use an article format appropriate to the specific topic rather than forcing the style of another topic. In the future, be sure that when you make edits to Wikipedia, you are able to defend your rational when challenged. BLAIXX 00:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I relocated the pyramid so it makes more sense. SportsFan007 (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The way you have arranged it still seems illogical to me. Why separate USL2 and NPSL from the other amateur leagues? I have asked you several times but you have still not provided any substantial explanation. I encourage you to continue discussion on this talk page until we can reach a consensus. BLAIXX 00:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: When PDL was acquired by United Soccer Leagues and because USL League Two it became professional and if NPSL is equal with it, then it should be listed as well. SportsFan007 (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

text: Also, USL League Two and NPSL have unnoffical tiers, which the other amatuer leagues don't have tiers at all. SportsFan007 (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: My issue is that those claims are unsourced and speculative. As per WP:Verifiability, information should be backed up by a reliable source and there does not appear to be one that says USL League 2 is professional or "Tier 4" or that NPSL and USL2 are equivalent. Indicating it as such, even as "unofficial" would constitute WP:OR which states that content should not be original research. BLAIXX 03:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  So should Tier 4 be removed from the Canadian pyramid? SportsFan007 (talk) 03:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tier 4 

message: I just went in to do some minor updates on the women's section, and couldn't help but notice that this page is honestly all over the place. Like, first off, the "general standards" should probably be at the top of the article, not wedged between the men's and women's sections. Second, there looks to be a lot of stuff that needs to be flipped between the "men's" and "general standards" sections, e.g. the league requirements should probably be in "general standards" and the men's timeline + men's structure tables should probably be in the "men's" section. As a part of that previous flipflop issue, there's also a ton of DII and DII league history that's currently unlabelled in the contents and looks like it's under "markets and stadia". Would anyone be opposed to the following page outline?
#Structure
##General Standards ((noting that these apply to both men's and women's pro leagues)
###Market Requirements
###Field and Stadia Requirements
##Division I
###(six requirements)
##Division II
###Ownership Reuirements
###Markets and Stadia
##Division III
###Ownership Reuirements
###Markets and Stadia
#Men's Leagues (incl. header sections where all the history goes, as well as the top-level table of the four pro leagues)
##Men's League System (i.e. the two tables currently in "structure", and the list of cups)
##Number of teams in each league
#Women's Leagues
#Indoor Leagues
(edit) forgot ot auto-sign, sorry CyMoahk2 (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page organization overhaul? 

message: I'm not sure this paragraph is relevant.  This proposal was reported close to 7 years ago and was never adopted by the USSF.  We don't know how serious the proposal was or how close it was to being adopted.  It only really entered the public consciousness due to the NASL, which was hoping to one day build to a D1 designation & was against the rules becoming stricter, expressing concern.  While the NASL has unfortunately gone away, those concerns proved unfounded.
"In September 2015, it was reported that the USSF was proposing the addition of eligibility requirements for sanctioned Division I soccer leagues, including that they must have at least 16 teams, stadiums with a capacity of at least 15,000, and at least 75% of the teams must be in cities that have a population of at least 2 million.[13]" 47.151.29.195 (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  2015 proposed D1 requirements.