you almost made me spit out my beer! Why are people more intrigued by the fantasy of a team in Ottawa or Phoenix or San Diego than they are by THE ACTUAL TEAMS THAT ALREADY EXIST?[/quote] because as soon as san diego has a team, i can stop giving galaxy my business three times a season to see my time play
Albany FC Albuquerque FC Atlanta FC Denver/Colorado Rapids Dayton FC El Paso FC Memphis FC New Orleans FC Ottawa FC Pittsburgh FC Sacramento FC San Antonio FC San Diego FC Syracuse FC
As much as I prefer the traditionalist names like that, I think you can get a form of it with the old-school NASL homage names. Within reason. Detroit Express? Sounds great, especially if they started out at the Silverdome. Jacksonville Tea Men? Not so much, especially as the team name had little meaning outside of Boston.
Here the all-time record average attendances of all soccer clubs (only current names used): New York Cosmos 47,000 Seattle Sounders 43,000 Minnesota United 32,000 Vancouver Whitecaps 29,000 Los Angeles Galaxy 28,000 Tampa Bay Rowdies 28,000 Impact de Montréal 23,000 New York Red Bulls 23,000 DC United 21,000 Houston Dynamo 21,000 New England Revolution 21,000 Colorado Rapids 20,000 Portland Timbers 20,000 Toronto FC 20,000 Chivas USA 19,000 Philadelphia Union 19,000 Real Salt Lake 19,000 San Jose Earthquakes 19,000 Sporting Kansas City 19,000 Tulsa Athletics 19,000 Columbus Crew 18,000 Chicago Fire 17,000 FC Dallas 16,000 Detroit City 14,000 San Diego Flash 14,000 Fort Lauderdale Strikers 13,000 Aguiluchos 11,000 Los Angeles Blues 11,000 Rochester Rhinos 11,000 Calgary Caledonian 10,000 FC Edmonton 10,000 So there are/were 31 teams with an average attendance above 10,000. Add Atlanta Silverbacks, Orlando City or San Antonio Scorpions as 32th team and you'll have a great league! Not now ofcourse, but maybe in 2025?
And ofcourse New York City FC The Atlanta Chiefs (much better name than the Atlanta Silverbacks if you ask me) record attendance is 26,000 in a match against the Cosmos and ofcourse Pele. Their average attendance record seems to be 7,000, which is pretty weak though. By the way: This year is the best year in US/Canada soccer history, according to club attendances.
He probably meant Detroit Express. He also has Minnesota United averaging 32,000 and Tulsa Athletics at 19,000. I'm guessing he meant Minnesota Kicks and Tulsa Roughnecks. Very misleading list considering there is zero continuity between those teams.
Rumors have resurfaced in the LA times that there a possibility that Chivas USA would be sold and relocated to either Orlando, Nashville, San Antonio or Arizona. This isn't the first time that Arizona has been mentioned. As a thought, a move to Arizona makes a lot of sense. Here is an idea for such as a move and re-branding. I'm sure there could be accommodations made for them at University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale. Also with a move to Arizona they could easily maintain the rivalry with the LA Galaxy and create new ones with RSL and Colorado.
And it's the "all time record average" which is the highest average home attendance for a season, I'm guessing... The only year the Tulsa Roughnecks averaged over 19k per game was 1980, the last year the NASL had 24 teams. As flattered as I am with the reference and comparison, our first-year NPSL Tulsa Athletics have played three games so far this season. Our only home game thus far drew over 3,200 fans, which is a really good start for us... https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=483751798363984&set=vb.448657418540089&type=2&theater
How about we list traditional sports team names that are not utilized in the 5 major sports leagues in the US? "Dragons" - surprised this name is not used considering the ferocity of the creature. Soccer would be a good fit as you can have a real cool medieval logo. City I would like to see use it: Miami. Miami Dragons looks nice together. And the flame of the dragon is symbolic of the blazing heat of Miami. "Pioneers" - another traditional team name that is not used in pro sports but you see it in high schools. But it fits soccer because like the New England revolution, it can come to mean a revolution of a new US sport. City I would like to see use it: St. Louis Pioneers "Mustangs"/"Stallions" - not counting the Red Bulls, no MLS team is really named after an animal. (I know, the Red Bulls are really named for the energy drink). I think Eurosnobs would frown upon a team named Scoprions or Raptors. Only a few select animals would be considered prestigious - an eagle, a lion. DC United uses the eagle in their logo. I'm sure Orlando will use Lions. How about a horse ? Really regal and elite animals. Denver has the Broncos and Indianapolis has the Colts. But none of the 5 leagues use Stallions or Mustangs as ther team name. City I would like to see use it: Atlanta. Maybe add a little extra something to add some oomph. Atlanta Fighting Stallions.
I was at an art museum last weekend and came across the historical painting Boatmen on the Missouri by George Caleb Bingham, a painter in the state of Missouri. This painting gave me the idea for a name for a new MLS franchise in St. Louis: Missouri Boatmen FC or St. Louis Boatmen FC, if you prefer. The details provided about the painting read that these boatmen refueled the steamboats that chugged up and down the river and that the men were more specifically called "woodhawks". Missouri Woodhawks FC would be a similar appropriate name, but I think Missouri Boatmen rolls off the tongue better and better suggests people who hear it to look up the historical significance behind it. Most people may just assume woodhawks are another generic animal nickname. The details about the painting read that these boatmen were celebrated for their independence and helped to create both a regional and a national sense of identity. They were the midwestern equivalent of the New England Yankee and the Western Cowboy. I'm not too particular on whether Missouri Boatmen or St. Louis Boatmen is better, but I think the Boatmen would be a beautiful name addition to MLS.
Source? Forgetting about Phoenix FC, aren't we? I think fans in Arizona should learn to support their teams (Coyotes) before allowing the importation of yet another flailing club.
I think Chivas simply needs new ownership, branding. No need to leave LA. Cut all ties with stingy Vergara and CD Guadalajara, rename yourselves, get the grassroots going. At worst, maybe a move to San Diego.
No, Minnesota Thunder drew 32,000 for a friendly with LA Galaxy in Beckham's first year. We are averaging over 5k a game this year so far.
An article in the Los Angeles Daily News and Long Beach have the City of Los Angeles focusing on a SSS in downtown LA, either located near the Coliseum or Dodger Stadium. Their was some suggestion that the Dodgers may be interested in acquiring Chivas USA or an expansion team. http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_23...cials-seek-bring-professional-soccer-downtown http://www.presstelegram.com/opinions/ci_23484781/l-stadium-soccer-not-football-is-wise-goal
Here's a proposal that probably a lot of you have already thought about: I think the MLS will continue to expand and acquire teams until it hits the magic number of 40. At that point the bigwigs at MLS could theoretically divide the league into two divisions and join the rest of the world in having (albeit a very controlled version) of promotion/relegation. Playoffs, as American as apple pie, would remain and help determine champions of both divisions and those who would move up/down. Here's a list of who I think might join in the next 50 years of the MLS. I wasted too much time thinking about this, taking into account metro area population, Nielsen's ratings, average soccer attendances and how saturated the markets are with professional sports teams. It's far-fetched, I know. But ain't futurism fun!? 20. New York City FC 21. Miami 22. Orlando 23. San Antonio 24. Minnesota 25. San Diego 26. St. Louis 27. Atlanta 28. Carolina 29. New York Cosmos (still believe they'll do it, making a triumvirate of NYC teams like the NHL) 30. Indy 31. Las Vegas 32. Detroit 33. Sac-Town 34. Tampa 35. Cleveland 36. Ottawa 37. Phoenix 38. Edmonton or Calgary (probably can't have both, even though these two could be great!) 39. Tennessee 40. Oklahoma City
When it gets to that point, how many of those "bigwigs" will voluntarily turn themselves into "littlewigs," and think that suddenly bringing in minor-league revenues for their major-league investment is a good idea? Not without at least a little grounding in reality. Until someone can answer the question I posed above, the idea of pro/rel in this country is a hell of a lot more than far-fetched.
MLS 2015: 1 New York City 2 New York Cosmos 3 Los Angeles Galaxy 4 Chicago Fire 5 Seattle Sounders 6 Houston Dynamo 7 FC Dallas 8 Orlando City 9 Fort Lauderdale Strikers 10 DC United 11 Philadelphia Union 12 Detroit City 13 Real Salt Lake 14 Colorado Rapids 15 Sporting Kansas City 16 Portland Timbers 17 Vancouver Whitecaps 18 Montreal Impact 19 Toronto FC 20 Columbus Crew 21 New England Revolution 22 San Jose Earthquakes
So where exactly is Chivas USA going to go? Where is Detroit City going to get money and not play in a shithole of a high school?