I think that Houston would be a good place or a new team, except the demand for the Houston Texans would hurt. If there was to be an expanios to Houston they could just share a stadium with the Texans until they could get an SSS. No offense, but I'd prefer a team in San Antonio because of it's history, it's lack of a sports team (as far as I know) and it's closer to Austin.
is there an actual point to this, it really just kind of seems like an incoherent rambling. What is your opinion? Houston is a good place for a team and San Antonio is closer to you? those seem more like facts than opinions....just wondering is all
#1 for the next year the owner of the Texans is in control of his stadium. if he doesn't buy a MLS franchise, then noone can force him to have one in Reliant Stadium #2 I think MLS competes more directly with baseball. the overlap with football season isn't that long and the games are on different days. the small markets in MLS - Columbus, now probably SLC without baseball do pretty well. the ones with baseball - KC, formerly TB, not as well. even DC has been unopposed and is near the tops in attendance. larger markets like LA and Chicago can handle both. smaller markets MLS is looking at - San Antonio, Rochester, Oklahoma City have no summer competition at the major league level, but Columbus, San Antonio, SLC are major league cities with winter sports. I think this may be part of the reason Portland does pretty well in the A-League. I don't see football as much competing at all. At some point markets get saturated with pro sports KC, TB and become tougher for MLS.
Yea my bad, I want a team in Houston or San Antonio. I don't really care where the next team will be. Sorry about the title.