Is MLS future in medium sized cities?

NFL - 8 games per year.
MLB - 81 games per year.

This isn't rocket science.

Michigan gets 100k per football game because they only have 6 or so games per year.

Most metropolitan areas in the US, Canada, and even Mexico could support an NFL franchise.

 

Exactly! So you agree that the quote "there's no "center" area near a critical mass of population" and the success of the Green Bay Packers are mutually exclusive...My man!

 

Read my sig...ok, now spell R-H-E-T-O-R-I-C-A-L....(or better yet) S-A-R-C-A-S-T-I-C.

 

Ok then, Where's the Lemon Ice King?...how many eggs go into a Proper Egg Cream? and where are the gas tanks?

(over/under is 8hrs...)

 

1)108th st (dumb question, I lived on 50th ave and 108)

2) none

3) and are you talking about the tanks off the BQE near the kosciuszko bridge?

and i grew up a yankee fan being that the rest of the fam is from the BX

a bit off the topic, lets be done with this and talk about whats going on in the thread.

 

for those that pointed out VA Beach/Hampton Roads. I always thought that area was good for expansion for NBA or anything else that wanted that market.

 

someone forget their meds? seriously, stick to the topic stop trying to induce a flame war

 

Andy Mead please educate me, what is it about Daniels Point? Surely no problem is insurmountable.

 

In the last year of Tiger Stadium, my dad and I took a trip up there to see the stadium that so many of my relatives had spent so many hours in. One morning, we drove out to see Michigan's stadium. It's within easy driving distance of Detroit. So that's a key reason why Michigan gets 100K for its home games.

PS...from the outside, the stadium is really, really UNimpressive, because it's very short. It's in a big hole, so from the outside, it's like SAS stadium or something. Then you go inside and look down...WOW!!!

 

That's a comparison for another part of the thread, I think, or perhaps a different thread completely. My comment was made in reference to a trend in your posts that was inching closer to a broad, normative judgement of San Antonio.

For instance, in your comparison between Rochester and San Antonio, you're coming real close to saying that an attendance of X (say, 12.5k) which is 'OK' in Rochester is 'not OK' in San Antonio simply because they might not be getting to it they way you think they ought to. Because otherwise, Rochester has a stadium that's not big enough, an owner that's not rich enough, in a market that's not big (SA is actually about 50% bigger) and not growing.

More seriously, your assertion that Rochester is 'rich' and San Antonio is 'poor' sounds like it was based on some vaguely ethnic assumption. San Antonio's personal income has in point of fact been rising faster than the national average for decades:

http://www.dallasfed.org/research/houston/2003/hb0308.html

As you can see from the above link, SA's personal income rank (35th in the country) is only marginally below it's population rank (32nd). San Antonio is not poor, my friend, and Rochester, being in a relatively economically stagnant area, is not rich:

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrel/MPINewsRelease.htm

The nominal difference between them in average personal income is a whopping 9%, a difference almost exactly erased by the difference in cost of living in the two cities:

http://swz.salary.com/costoflivingw...memetrocode=153&newworkmetrocode=153&x=49&y=8

Furthermore, the growth in Rochster's PI was 1.6% in 2 years, versus 3.3% in SA.

It's quite debatable, in that context, which would be 'A-League move' and which one had growth in mind.

The problem I find here is that you equate the league's ambition level so closely with your own preferences. For instance, why would this ambitious league that you describe limit itself to only four more teams? Why would it not take advantage of a city willing to give it a great financial incentive? Especially a city much better qualified than you seem to give it credit for being.

 

Zero eggs go in a egg cream.

 

Holy zombie thread, Batman!

But this shows how today's 'small city' advocates are not like those of a decade ago. It's now radical by some to argue for almost any city under 2M, and even 2.5M is smaller than they really find acceptable. I think I'm in favor of small cities, but Rochester, OKC, and others in that range are too small, even if MLS is the only game in town.