2013 Rapids Season Catch-All Thread

We are officially the 2013 Rapids! Thanks to Jason for last season's thread.

Got this from Grant Wahl on SI:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/news/20130103/mls-ambition-rankings/index.html

Guess where the Rapids are ranked in terms of Wahl's "MLS Ambition?"

Hey Mr. Wahl, what "expectations" are the "soccer stadium in Commerce City" supposed to deliver on that it hasn't?

Do you like DSGP? i think it feels half finished

When I hear people talk about "ambition", I think about a management and ownership group that is committed to creating a product of authentic quality and genuine value for the fans. Kansas City, Portland, and Seattle are the poster-children of that. Kroenke never has been, and never will be, committed to that. He's a shady used car salesmen (complete with the fake hair and shitty suits) that only cares about his real estate portfolio.

I thought The same thing when I read the article. But I think he was referring to overall soccer "buzz" which is lacking, as well as lackluster increases in attendance.
Also, I like the feel of the stadium a lot. Just wish we had more fans in more enthusiastic ones.

I do like it. It's not the greatest stadium the world has ever seen or anything, and I think it would be better served with some other commercial and residential mixed use development around it. But given the circumstances and given the SSS designs that had come before it, from a design point-of-view it was a quantum leap forward.

But that's besides my point, which is that Wahl got lazy. He needed to spell out the supposed expectations of the stadium, to which, the only one I can think anyone may have is the cliche "if you build it, they will come." Which is an irrational expectation, and frankly contradicts his earlier plaudits regarding the modest increase in attendance. Otherwise, what did he expect, a Peter Eisenman exploded cactus? a stadium shaped like a dragon spitting fire?

Or did he mean something entirely different and again just got lazy? Did he mean atmosphere? How is that the stadium's fault and not, say, the RFO's fault?

How so?

i feel like it should be an enclosed bowl, the cantilevered roof should go all the way around... i think their should be a smaller video board above the cantina i think the seats should be closer to the pitch...maybe half finished isnt quite right... maybe half assed and on the cheap would be a more adept phrase

In terms of DSGP, I think Wahl is referring to its location, which hurts attendance. I hashed all this out in another thread last year, but couldn't find it. He also called FCD's park in Frisco "a huge mistake," and Chicago Fire's Toyota Park also "hasn't been [a] success," situated in Bridgeview, IL.

To rehash: DSGP has no public transit to the park, you have to drive, which reduces the pool of fans. The parks in downtown/central locations, as a general rule, do much better in attendance.

Except for the fact that attendance went up when the Rapids moved from the downtown Invesco Field to the Dick, moreso when you factor out the fact that Invesco could hold 60K for a 4th of July game and the Dick can't.

That's not to say the Rapids couldn't do better in a downtown stadium, but there's no evidence that the move to Commerce City has hurt attendance. In the end it comes down to what KSE is willing to spend on marketing and sales, not location.

I think the Rapids have already improved this offseason, and the Hinchey-Bravo-Pareja combo does seem to be a little more forward thinking in terms of ambition, but I certainly wouldn't put us in the same class as teams like LAG, Seattle, and SKC.

Kinda hurts to see RSL at #4 on the list, but they do understand how to be a successful small market team, which is what I think the Rapids should emulate.

Even with our improvements, I'm wondering if we'll climb the table at all. From what I've seen of this offseason, it looks like almost every other team is making huge moves.

Which would mean the "expectations" are illogical - one can't expect a stadium in a pseudo-industrial, pseudo-suburban edge of town to draw high attendance numbers as well as a downtown stadium. One can't expect a stadium not directly accessed by public transportation to draw high attendance numbers as well as one that is easily accessed by public transportation.

And again, if Wahl's complaints are related to attendance, why does he complement the modest increase in average attendance the line before?

More money on marketing and sales is great, but the location is still a problem. Sure attendance went up from the football stadium, but 15k tickets sold, and 10k actual butts in the seats is mediocre. It's all about transit. A more accessible location would garner us sellouts and actual attendance of 15k, while spending less on marketing and sales. There's nothing we can do about it until the stadium crumbles, and they'll just have to deal with the fact they've handicapped themselves when marketing.

The location by itself really isn't the problem. The problem is there is absolutely nothing within walking distance of the stadium. No bars, no retail, no entertainment.

I don't believe this to be true. I believe the Commerce City site does have undeniable handicaps compared to a potential downtown site, but I think there are ways to get a higher actual attendance number: if the infrastructure was developed around the stadium to encourage walk-up crowds you could get the same effect as being downtown. It'd take a multi-faceted approach: spending more on marketing, but targeted to the Commerce City communities nearby; mixed use commercial and residential developments within the same "block" as the stadium, without having to cross Quebec or 56th; better road networks to and from the stadium; shuttles from Northfield and other public transportation improvements; and so on.

Then why didn't this happen when we were at Invesco, which was within walking distance of multiple transit options?

I guess the one convenience Dick's does have is that you only have to travel across the street if you're making a trip to the drunk tank or a jail cell.

Because it isn't a SSS. Look at NE & DC that still play in football stadiums, the only worse attendance was Chivas.

Look at Seattle. A non-SSS in a downtown location similar to Invesco.

The stupid part about this conversation every time it comes up on BS is that people overlook the reason why stadiums are built in places like Commerce City. It's expensive to put a stadium downtown in an area accessible via public transit.

It reminds me of a joke economists like to tell:

"A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on an island, with nothing to eat. A can of soup washes ashore. The physicist says, "Let's smash the can open with a rock." The chemist says, "Let's build a fire and heat the can first." The economist says, "Assume a can-opener..." "

CenturyLink was, in fact, built with hosting both a soccer & football team in mind.

Trust me, I know (I voted for it), but that's a long way from a SSS as you suggested. Its as much of an NFL stadium as Gillette is, certainly whatever minor tweaks that may have been made for soccer aren't enough to explain the difference in attendance between it and NE (or Invesco when the Rapids played there).

Wasn't the Revs' attendance pretty good back in the beginning? It's seems hard to lay *all* the blame on the stadium.

A couple things:

1) Nobody builds a large outdoor stadium in a major metropolitan area and says "we are only going to use this for our NFL team and nothing else".

2) The idea that Seattle's venue was designed with any serious consideration to hosting a soccer team regularly is a load of crap that comes from the drinkers of the rave green Kool-Aid. Have you actually been to a game there? The sight-lines for soccer there are a lot worse than at the Broncos stadium.

Horse and cart scenario to me, most everyone looks at the cart. I think the Horse/ ownership set this failure up all on their own. I understand KC and RSL are on transit lines, could be completely wrong. Our owner bought team to make a realestate play of some sort, thus why we are where we are. Stan went for low cost/ high gov't incentives and we will pay for that decision for a long time.

Water under the bridge this is, its now up to marketing and whatnot to get seats filled.

Have to say they should of used a little of Ikea methodology for location placement, they insist sites must be next too 2 highway intesection and highly visibile. Can't count how many times people have asked me (when I lived in Denver) where exactly DSG is located, since its not "viewable" from highway.