Sid the Kid? Yeah, he's educational, but what does he have to do with a SSS? [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hlkRcTmFxY"]SID THE SCIENCE KID | Exploring Measurement | PBS KIDS - YouTube[/ame]
What makes it spectacularly bad is, he should know better. He pre-dates the current blog format. What I don't understand is why the mods in this section haven't blammed this thread yet. I reported it virtually the moment it was resurrected. Perhaps I should've posted here with my usual "HOLY THREAD NECROMANCY, BATMAN!!!"
The irony of recently digging up a dormant thread that hasn't been active in four plus years is that the Pittsburgh Riverhounds of USL PRO have today announced plans for a $7.5million 3,500 seat downtown stadium that will open this summer. http://www.uslsoccer.com/home/589759.html
And the Penguins were dark blue, light blue and white from October 11, 1967 until January 30, 1980. /continued necrophilia
It's still a valid reply. Plus, who the ******** dredges up 4 1/2 year-old threads instead of just starting a new one?
Two teams in PA is one too many. PS. 2 months since last post, sorry to disappoint anyone who thought there was actual news.
Really? They are 250 miles apart; if there was enough desire by both fans and ownership why should being in the same state as the Union preclude them from getting a team?
Sure, in the far future, I'm all for it. Considering there are entire regions without teams, I would say 1 in PA is good enough.
Ok, good, which california and cascadia teams are going to be moving because there are too many in one region?
California is the size of spain. Quite an apt comparison there. Moreover, as far as tv markets go, there are a good six or seven markets which are bigger than pitt that have had mls interest at some point or are being watched with interest. Naturally people will bring up investors, sss etc, but on a pecking order a pitt team would maybe scrape a top 10 list.
I love the people who argue for expansions markets that are in another team's background. Oh, the rivalry will really drive the teams and the fans will come out and it will like super awesome. (the rest of this is not a reply to you in particular Zxcv, but this thread in general) Seattle, Portland and Vancouver got in not because of their rivalry (it played a part, but that is not the reason) but because they were a good city. Large sized with good ownership. Fan support was there in the USL as well. Now in the earlier days of MLS they basically couldn't pick and choose like they could be doing now (i don't know how many expansion offers they get). So when Chivas came along they decided to capitalize on that market in LA and San Jose and LA were charter members. So you can't really compare those. Hey, what would be good for a business. Say you sell a craft Beer. Your craft beer is really good and profitable in Philly. So much that fans from all over Pennsylvania come to buy and drink it. You decided to take some of that revenue and make a new brew and expand, your business is left with two choices. It can either try to expand to an entirely new market with relatively unknown outcomes or expand nearby and potentially cannibalize the sales on your already owned beer. You make the call, but IMO they need to fill out before expanding into smaller areas. Now you tell me what area has the most teams. Certainly not the Ohio to New York area. California and Cascadia do not compare at all to that region.
Yeah well said. Not to mention the history and base that existed in Cas. Midwest and south are far more important at this stage. Hell, compared to the north east as a whole, the west could use another team aswell.
You do realize that the Northeast and the Midwest are culturally completely different right? It's like putting Texas and Florida in with the south; the only part of Florida that is culturally similar to the south is the pan handle. Now I'm not trying to argue with you that other regions don't need teams; I think we need at least one maybe two out of Orlando, Tampa or Miami. It would be nice to get three to four of Nashville, Charlotte, Raleigh, or Atlanta maybe New Orleans. The Southwest only really has two viable cities Phoenix and Las Vegas that could work but that will be far in the future. There are only two regions that are completely tapped... well should be; the Northeast with four teams, the Revs need to move to Boston, and the Pacific Northwest. The Midwest has two teams; Pittsburgh might be in Pennsylvania but it is a part of the Midwest; if Pitt is out because it's too close to Philly are Detroit and Indianapolis out? Like I said Pitt is 250 miles from Philly it's about 160 from Columbus. Indy is right in between Chicago and Columbus about 160 miles each are they out? Detroit to Columbus is about 160 too; to Chicago it's closer than Pitt is to Philly are they out? Pitt is a Midwestern city visit Cleveland, Detroit and Philly then go to Pittsburgh and see which it is more reminiscent of. As an aside I don't like moving teams but this is why I hate Chivas and NY2. I get that they are huge cities but demographics are completely different than when every other league put multiple teams in those cities and left other regions without anything. Lets not be like baseball were they only have one team in the south and try to convince the entire region that's their team. The NFL and NBA are tying hard to fix their neglect of the south but it's going to take a while. MLS needs to be thinking about this they have four teams in the Northeast if we want to sport to grow everywhere in this country the groundwork needs to be laid sooner rather than later I believe that with is coming out that the league has a full time employee working on NY2 we are going down the same road even though we can see the demographic shift. We will likely have five in the Northeast and none in the south.
hahahaha theoretically the northeast should have the most teams because its the most populated region in the united states. As far as the cascadia rivalries the northeast cities all hate each other. It isnt just publicized as the northwest. Boston hates new york, new york hates boston. philly hates new york, new york hates philly. dc and new york hate eachother. philly hates dc. New york red bull fans all got beat up at a dc united game. check you tube. If baltimore ever gets a team the rivalry between baltimore and dc united would be intense. Even more so than portland - seattle. People arguing that two teams in Pennsylvania is too much is laughable. They obviously are not from here. The argument would be the same as saying there should be no SJ Earthquakes because there is an LA Galaxy team. Its like a 4 hour drive hauling ass from philly to pittsburgh. The eastern and western half of the state are very different. Many pennsylvanians will tell you that once you get over the mountains the states starts to feel more midwestern. Pittsburgh is a midwest demographic city. So everybody screaming for a team in the midwest that has no soccer team there already better come accustom to hearing pittsburgh in the discussion. the new management group was adamant about getting the stadium downtown and seem to have high aspirations. I do agree it will not happen for several rounds of expansion but there name should be kept in the discussion. I wrote a lot about this on my blog.
did he say otherwise? re Pitt and geography, I don't think expansion has to be about spreading teams evenly. If the market is good and big enough, and there's a good stadium, ownership, fan support and long term prospects, why not? It's not like you'll convert all South by putting a team in some particular city or building a Charlotte-Atlanta rivalry. Will people in Alabama or New Orleans or Memphis really care much? It's symbolic to have a team in each cultural / geographical zone. And since some people do care about those things, it might help you get an undecided fan or ten from Memphis. But I don't think it's important to a point where you'd force multi-expansion into these zones and ignore better local markets. So IMO, it's really on Pittsburgh and their fans/ownership/stadium. By the way, Pacific Northwest has 3 metros worth mentioning, and each of them has an MLS team. Comparing Pacific Northwest to "Ohio to New York" is apples and oranges for obvious reasons.
It seems he thinks Pitt is in the Northeast, it is in Pennsylvania but it's in a Midwestern city. I'm not saying they need to be spread out exactly evenly but we all know where the growth trends are. Knowing where population shifts are occurring it might be a good idea to not ignore a region that is growing rapidly. None of the NFL, NBA, or MLB made a mistake by not being in the south early on the population didn't call for it; it does now so the NFL and NBA have put teams there, MLB just has too many teams they've put two in Florida but have stuck with the one team for the entire south. Well MLS can't claim hindsight it is a young league let's not be MLB let's not be too Northeastcentric. I would have to disagree about people being fans because a team is at least close to them. I know people that are Crew fans from Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Kentucky and West Virgina these are all people that make it to game and spend money on the league/team. That is a wide area to get at least some market penetration with just one team. How well will that work if you live in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, North/South Carolina, or Tennessee and your closest teams are in Houston, Dallas, Kansas City, Columbus, or DC? People in those areas might just chose a team to follow but how much are they spending on the league, how many games are they going to? I'd bet it wouldn't be a lot. Agreed every city must prove to be viable and enter the league on its own merits.
"Pennsylvania is Philadelphia at one end, Pittsburgh at the other end, and a whole lot of Alabama in between." James Carville