It was an interesting 2013 USL Pro campaign to say the least.  Earlier this year, MLS and USL Pro entered into a ground-breaking affiliation that resulted in the USL Pro championship being won by Domic Dwyer of Sporting Kansas City.  Harsh?  Maybe. Good for Orlando?  Absolutely.  Good for KC?  The jury is still out (let’s see in Dwyer can crack the starting XI and provide goals).  It is interesting to note that Orlando did knock SKC out of the open cup, but let’s just let that simmer on the back-burner for now.

There are currently four USL Pro clubs that have official partnerships with MLS franchises. Orlando had another strong season with a lineup boosted by loan players from SKC. Richmond and Harrisburg also featured on-loan MLS talent in 2013 and had great results. The Kickers, led by DC United GK Andrew Dykstra, finished the season at the top of the table while only losing one game.  Harrisburg finished in 4th place and featured Philadelphia’s Jimmy McLaughlin in the engine room.  Rochester, who signed an agreement with New England this past off-season, were just awful.

On the surface it would seem like these partnerships resulted in success and yes, they were beneficial in many ways.  Three of the four teams had fantastic seasons.  However, to say that the affiliations were the driving force for success can be debated.  If we take a closer look at Orlando over the past three seasons a clear pattern emerges.  The squad has always included on-loan talent.  Richmond’s roster includes Houston Dynamo midfielder Brian Ownby and we all know Harrisburg has relied on Union talent for years. So was the official affiliation really the reason these teams had success?  One could argue that these teams have been successful over the years because they are well run organizations, or in Orlando’s case, the team with the biggest bankroll.

Many clamored for the Hounds to partner up with a top-tier franchise following the 5 nil playoff thrashing a few weeks back.  Let’s take a look at the pros and cons of staying independent.

PROS

• Being independent allows the Hounds to stay flexible in terms of player contracts. The Hounds would be free to sign a player on-loan from any other club and would not be required to play specific players based on mandate.
• Aside from injuries, players added this season have paid off handsomely.  If top players leave while under contract, the club would will be compensated accordingly (as we were with Matt Kassel). If our top players were on-loan from another team, there would be no compensation from them moving on.
• The Riverhounds have invested the majority of their resources into building a nationally ranked top-15 youth academy that will eventually pay off for the club in the form of talent.  Staying independent allows the franchise to continue to develop the academy as they see fit.
• Imagine winning a championship in a tainted fashion like Orlando.  Who wants to win that way?  Well, I imagine some would be okay with that, but Pittsburgh is a city built on hard work and pride.  A championship forged by our own hand is what we expect.

CONS

• No easy influx of MLS talent.  The Hounds would need to do more legwork and invest additional resources to get players over the line.
• Limited access to a thinning talent pool could also result from more teams taking advantage of the affiliation.  Less players would be released making gems like Jose Angulo harder to find.
• Those teams who do have official partnerships have received additional exposure over the summer.  Articles have been written highlighting the exploits of loanies and many MLS fans have also become fans of their partnered USL Pro club.

VERDICT

I personally feel like the flexibility and long-term benefits of staying independent far outweigh the quick, temporary results that may (or may not in the case of Rochester) come by affiliating.  I would hate to see our proud club cast as a second-class whore (Harrisburg) suckling at the tit of ML$.  Whatever our club decides to do, I am confident that they’ll work hard to reap as many benefits and hidden advantages as possible.