Golly! I'm sure glad MLS plays from fall to spring!

Last post for today. Currently it is -1 here in Minneapolis and St. Paul. Ha.

ETFE polymer among innovative materials in Vikings stadium design

It sounds like it will be a nice place especially if the MLS decides to change the schedule. I for one would rather keep status quo. A SSS in downtown MPLS for United would be a better fit.

 

First in the US, doesn't mean First of it's Kind.

You should read think links you post

 

forget the obvious weather hurdles... why does would anyone want a 2 month break in the middle of the season and based on some peoples logic 4 months between home games?

 

The fact of the matter is the clear roof technology hasn't been used in America and especially on this level. What I do know a MLS team can play in Minnesota if MLS changes to a FIFA schedule.

 

Words have meanings.

They could do it anyway. You just have to watch another team on a crap surface.

 

Because that's Proper™

 

I have written so much on this over on the other thread that I'm not gonna bother doing it again - though it would be great to be made fun of by Mr. Yellow Card Warmth (it's been a while).
Suffice it to say that the commissioner is on record saying it's not a question of "if" but "when" in terms of a calendar switch. It's going to happen - hopefully sooner rather than later.
And I hope the 25-50 people on BS that think the idea sucks will still follow the league after the switch is made.

 

http://www.accuweather.com/en/us/minneapolis-mn/55415/december-weather/348794?monyr=12/1/2013
http://www.accuweather.com/en/us/minneapolis-mn/55415/january-weather/348794

That doesn't look to promising.

 

When ?

His most recent comments didn't say that. He merely said that they had made serious efforts to figure it out and that they'd keep looking at it: http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/artic...kles-scheduling-and-tv-ratings-annual-state-l

 

I'd be less concerned with "25-50 people" on big soccer who don't like the idea but would still watch, and be more concerned with the thousands of casual fans who wouldn't like the idea and wouldn't continue to watch.

 

Weather, another reason San Antonio is the right choice for the last of 24 teams.

 

The commissioner can say all he wants to about it, it is not his decision. If the owner/operators don't want it, it won't happen.

 

Don Garber: "I don’t think we’re ready now. It is more a 'when' than 'if,' but I have no idea when that 'when' is."

http://soccer.si.com/2013/12/09/mls-commissioner-don-garber-owners-scheduling-tv-chivas-more/2/

 

"SI: The clubs that would be willing to go for it, what’s their argument for a change?
GARBER: Some of them are in warm markets and some of them are in cold markets. They believe long term, if you want to be authentic, if you want to be one of the top leagues in the world, you likely have to align with the rest of the world. It might open up our transfer windows to be more productive. It might allow us to have a better playoff format and less clutter this time of the year, when we’re competing with the most popular sports."

http://soccer.si.com/2013/12/09/mls-commissioner-don-garber-owners-scheduling-tv-chivas-more/2/

 

When I asked him face-to-face about 10 months ago he said it wouldn't be soon.

I'm not going to claim it would always be a bad move for MLS, but in the next 5, maybe 10, years? Yeah, lousy move. Talk to me after the 2018 WC and maybe I'll have changed my mind.

 

"Casual fans" aren't watching. That's the problem. The only people who watch an MLS Cup final when there is a good American football game on TV are soccer dweebs like you and me, and the folks who watch on Spanish-language channels.

 

Maybe. San Diego, San Francisco, Tampa Bay, St. Louis, Durham, Jacksonville, Phoenix might also have a claim.

 

You keep focusing on that one game. But there are 337 more games to worry about.

 

Yep but he still needs owners/operators to approve the switching of the schedule.

 

The Super Bowl and World Cup Final should teach us all that a final is way, way, way more important than what it took to get there - especially when we are talking about things important to owners/leagues like television ratings and revenues from TV, advertising, sponsors, etc.

Too many of you guys are focused on MLS 2.0 concerns of in-house attendance instead of looking to how to grow the product for the future. The future revenue is in expanding the TV base (see expansions in Atlanta and Miami) and then growing the TV audience - which is why much of that discussion in the SI piece was about whether television partners wanted a calendar switch and if they did would that be the thing that pushed MLS to change.

 

Not to mention the lack of installations of this type of roof in areas of the country with heavy snow loading.

Not saying it can't be accomplished, but a 12" snow can bring a roof down pretty fast

 

Bayern Munich Official wants to go to summer schedule\

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/09/s...e-for-european-soccer.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

 

He said it in an SI interview and as well as the MLS Cup halftime show.

 

eh, I'd rather it be Austin. HUGE market and no professional sports teams? That's crazy potential right there. I think that is really appealing to Garber.

 

Sorry the University of Texas is a pro sports team.