Since 2 official teams are being expanded from D2 to MLS, probably 3 with Montreal. It looks like MLS is looking down at D2 for possible expansion teams. For the survival and good of the game, since we don't have and probably not for a long time pro/rel, what should be the criteria for the next expansion team? my number one criteria should be attendance, and of course second SSS. what do you think?
In the past it has, but it looks like these couple years there has been a turn-around. Seattle(USL)had a average of around 4,000, but the key is everybody knew the team had potential to draw really great for example: The all-time USL record of 25,515 was set in 2002 when Seattle played the first game ever at Qwest Field (then Seahawks Stadium). League average attendance finished at 4,667 for 2002.
Examples please? Toronto and Seattle seem to be doing just fine. I cannot imagine a world where Portland or Montreal don't do well in MLS after they make the move up. There seems to be a clear shift in priorities for teams or cities wishing to enter MLS and I don't see them gambling on cities like Miami that have shown very, very poor support for existing pro soccer when they have cities with solid, existing fanbases like St. Louis, Vancouver, Rochester, hopefully Tampa, etc to leech from the 2nd Division. If you are talking about cities chosen for MLS for it's first season, cities chosen based on previous NASL team attendance, I'm not sure it's comparable any longer given how much the sport has grown in the last 2 decades. Some of those cities, like San Jose, might be much more viable now if they had the chance to begin as a D2 team in the current soccer environment and build a new fan base from the ground up rather than being in the vanguard of a new soccer era with no established support in place.
The criteria for MLS expansion is as follows: A) Have money coming out of your arse. B) Have a concrete and metal playpen that you control the revenue streams ready to play in. C) Hope that Don Garber has a hard on for your city.
That's exactly why I'm saying previous attendance is not a good predictor. 4,000 is nothing to write home about, but Seattle MLS draws great. Attendance and "potential" are not the same thing. I was saying that actual attendance is a lousy predictor. Potential attendance is very hard to quantify. That's why, like RedRover said, $$$ and a revenue-controlled venue have been established as the really meaningful criteria.
Those ARE the examples. Toronto's USL attendance was awful. Seattle's was middle-of-the-pack. And they're doing incredibly well in MLS, which means poor/mediocre D-2 attendance doesn't necessarily mean poor/mediocre MLS attendance. Yes, good D-2 attendance predicts good MLS attendance. It shows there's an existing body of people willing to buy tickets for pro soccer. That body should only grow as those teams move up to MLS. But again, for that same reason, poor USL attendance doesn't necessarily predict poor MLS attendance. Seattle and Toronto show that there's a group of people who won't pay attention to a second-division team but will pay attention to a major-league team. There's also the little matter of Philadelphia, which of course had no D-2 track record to speak of. And Rochester, a leader in D-2 attendance for many years now but no longer anywhere near MLS consideration. The conclusion? D-2 attendance isn't a central concern of MLS in making expansion decisions. I'm sure it's one factor, but it seems to be dwarfed by others: how rich the owners are, whether they own their stadium, and larger characteristics of the market.
but Seattle had once a attendance of 25,000, so that proves something. Toronto and Philadelphia have a great supporter fanbase which also is one of the criteria, if it weren't for Son's of Ben, I don't think Philly would have a team.
No, it doesn't. It was one game. Their overall attendance did not reflect a long-term serious interest in the sport, but their MLS attendance has. A few hundred screaming, excited fans is not enough to support the costs of an MLS team. I'm sure it helps, but the reason those cities have teams is that Toronto is the largest TV market in Canada and Philly is the 4th or 5th largest in the U.S.
Not only one game, as Seph said, but one game that was a cheap sneak preview for Seahawks fans to see their team's new stadium. And nobody knew whether or not Toronto had a "great supporter fanbase" before TFC. If so, it certainly wasn't expressed through Toronto Lynx attendance, which is what we're talking about here. I don't know why you're reaching so hard to make this minor point, but again, D-2 attendance is but one small factor among many when it comes to MLS expansion. Good D-2 attendance? Sorry, that's not enough (Rochester). Poor, mediocre, or nonexistent D-2 attendance, but a billionaire owner, a revenue-controlled stadium, and a major-league market? You're in (Philadelphia, Toronto, Seattle, even Houston if you want to count that league-approved move as an expansion).
yea i rather see Tampa get in rather then Miami. I like the rowdies and i like the mutiny they always seem to be the better drawing city vs Miami.
Obviously we have ALOT of work to do down here if we want to get MLS one day. And for whatever reason Miami comes up in the conversation before we do. Despite our deeper soccer heritage and a more successful MLS franchise when we had one. If we really do get 8K+ tomorrow night and can keep that momentum going throughout the season I sincerely hope it gets us back in the conversation. Obviously we are going to have our bad attendance days and no one has any clue what we'll end up averaging, but the ingredients are here and something is brewing for sure.
First off, who might replace Montreal in NASL? (I would say the strongest USL DII. Charlseton Battery??) Second, how likely is it that MLS will expand beyond 20 teams, and if so when? Sounds like MLS/Garber is serious about another NY team in the near future, which would be great! But is it really needed? overkill maybe? Or would it be better to eventually move to the aged old, drawn out, blah blah blah discussion of promotion/relegation between MLS and NASL after the 20th MLS team?
Well since you opened up the proverbial can of worms meaning pro/rel, this blog has the best idea for pro/rel that actually might work: http://www.24thminute.com/2010/04/impossible-dream.html
Umm not by much if at all sir. The Mutiny barely drew better than the Fusion(and Miami was better in 2001), and the Rowdies were better in part because they were the first major league sports team in Tampa(and the only good one until the late 90s when the Bucs got good). I hope Tampa does well. But "deserved" or not Miami/South Florida is likely higher on MLS's, and more importantly potential investors', radar than Tampa is.
Garber is in talks with Atlanta for southeast franchise and St. Louis chances are slim, also the writer states Florida not South Florida: "We need a second team in New York," Garber said recently. "I think by the middle part of the decade we will be at 20 teams. ... We continue to have discussions in Atlanta. We've got to be there (in the Southeast). ... St. Louis is an important city but without a stadium and funding ..." So 20th team by 2015 http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sp...2956EB6176E3C00A8625771D000672CE?OpenDocument
Lets not go down this false road again sirs. The Fusion and the Mutiny were pulled because no one wanted to own them. Sure they were not leaders in attendance, but they were doing no worse (in fact better) than San Jose and Dallas were at the time.
lol. sigh The Mutiny did better than several current MLS teams are doing, and over twice as much time as the Fusion existed. They did it with no ownership group to steer the ship and nothing even close to the type of marketing push the Rowdies have had so far (not to say the Rowdies have been awesome in this regard). I never said we whooped the Fusion's tail in attendance, but we were better and we were consistent. Sorry if that stings. Also, your attempt at belittling the Rowdies heritage in Tampa fails. Yes, being the first pro sports team in Tampa helped. However, the community strongly supported the team long after the new car smell wore off. When we are sitting amongst a sell out crowd of over 8,000 tomorrow night and you are enjoying your festive atmosphere that only a team that averages 1200 can provide, I might think of you all down there. But probably not. MLS might make the mistake of expanding to Miami after all, who knows. They've gambled in the past with expansion. I might not even be in disagreement that it could work, especially if they brought in Tampa along side them to have another built in rivalry. But as you put it, "deserved or not". And I say most definitely not. You guys can't even get the kind of supporter momentum going that the Sons of Ben managed in order to push for Philly to get a team. That will never happen. And they didn't even have D2 to build from! You guys have had a team for years down there now. YEARS! And what do you have to show for it? 20 "ultras" banging a drum while a thousand indifferent fans sit on their bums. Good grief. Oh right, blame Traffic.
I think the point is, crappy D-2 attendance means nothing in comparison to a potential MLS franchise. Great D-2 attendance is definitely a plus, but it's still no guarantee that MLS will be a success (but if the fans are there for D-2, they'll more than likely be there for MLS, unless the MLS team really screws up). Ownership, marketing, and team quality have a lot to do with it.
For a team that draws 8k+ it's easier to get more fans, then a team that averages 1k. for example if Miami had a team they would need 10k just to be at the bottom of attendance for MLS.
ya I didn't realize Toronto had such shitty D2 attendance and their MLS franchise took off right from the get go. Anyone know what factors caused low attendance there before they got MLS?
