Re: Just Heard Sacramento Want An MLS Team Your criticism of Elk Grove makes sense, but Davis is an even worse suggestion--about the same distance away, with much less surrounding population.
Re: Just Heard Sacramento Want An MLS Team There's a neat bar in Elk Grove, well, Franklin, but I don't think that either Elk Grove or Franklin would be a good location. That said, I think it is positive that the MLS is seen as a desirable league to join and that Sacramento could be a reasonable place to put a team.
Re: Just Heard Sacramento Want An MLS Team Look who's talking, Revs are shit, ownership is shit, stadium is shit.
Re: Just Heard Sacramento Want An MLS Team How did you come up with that? I'm an America(MX) fan and I love Chivas USA and don't give a shit about Guadalajara. Why? Because I live in the US. Not every Guadalajara or Mexican fan loves MLS by the way. If Sacramento can pull it off, why not.
Re: Just Heard Sacramento Want An MLS Team "Not going to post. Don't want to turn this into yet another Chivas thread." "Hmm. Too late! Well, f*** it, then. Might as well." Curious: Is there any actual concrete evidence of this? So far, the only evidence I've seen is Chivas USA's own insistence that they're looking. Talk is cheap. Have they toured sites? Met with developers? Given any idea of what area they're looking at? I would think that if Chivas USA is really looking at new stadium locations as hard as they claim to be, these eternal threads would always bring up where they're considering going, rather than just engaging in the same pointless speculation they always do. After three or four posts, you'd expect someone to pop up with "well, the Chivas USA FO says they'd like to move to so-and-so". And for the record, I'm on the side of at least a minor rebranding, because I find the Chivas USA (non-)"identity" to be an embarrassment to the league. But I'm not going to bother running through my arguments, because I've done it countless times before. Anyone who actually gives a sh*t can search for "Chivas USA" in my post history. ------RM
Two things: 1) I am sure it doesn't get hotter in Sacramento than in Houston or Dallas, and both markets are okay with games during the day or night (though night games are better draws throughout all of MLS regardless of time of year) 2) I think Sacramento could be an ideal place for MLS IF they were to have the stadium in the same place or area as where they're talking about building the new stadium for the Kings. Hopefully no more suburban stadiums after Kansas City. They're probably the final place in MLS where that can work with good result.
Similar to Houston, I believe. But very dry. Not quite as hot as Dallas on average. But it can be very regularly over 100 for days on end. If it's over 100, then you really can't play during the day.
plus it doesnt have the backbreaking humidity, its dry heat. its hot no denying that. but dallas and houston are relative temperature wise. I have no doubts Sac is viable for MLS. Elk Grove i do question though, that area is in economic shambles. Foreclosures galore, much like Roseville. Its nearly Las Vegas status, and its on the edge of the city. What would be smart is if the tried to get on board with the Sacramento Kings ownership, tie down the railyards near downtown, and get a stadium/field right next to the arena. THAT would be siiiick
I heard the Sacramento Kings had been wanting to move down to San Jose and play in the Arena. Not sure how true it is though...
No, the Kings wanted to move to Anaheim. They should move the Clippers to Anaheim anyway. That way they don't have to play second fiddle to the Lakers in arena as well as market. In terms of climate, Sacramento has extremely variable weather in the summer. The average is 92 in July, but it could range anywhere from 80 to 105 in a typical summer. Houston is almost constantly a mix of Gulf humidity and desert heat, which means upper 90s with dewpoints in the 80s, and occasional 100s as humid. Dallas isn't as bad since it's away from the marshy coastline, but it's close.
Well, it's not like it's Stockton, which is by far the closest you'll get to Las Vegas status in that area. And Roseville's actually doing comparatively OK. But, yeah, I can't think of any town along 99 that isn't suffering dramatically.
I never understood the hatred for Chivas. If they named themselves Chivas LA would that be better? I just don't get it. I mean, why aren't Barcelona fans in Utah getting all pissy about Real Salt Lake? Or Liverpool fans in DC up in arms about DC United? Who cares? Half the teams in the league have copied more famous teams, so what if one is Mexican? As for Sacramento. Good market, but I've always been the kind that thinks pro teams need to be spread out between states. California already has 3, with one already in Northern California. Meanwhile, neither of my two home states of Michigan and Indiana have a team. It is really hard for me to support teams in rival cities like Chicago, or anything from Ohio. While the entire Southeast is without a team. How about we spread the wealth a bit more before giving California as many soccer teams as they have baseball teams?
If they named themselves "Chivas LA", that would be MUCH better. It's not "coping" names like you say RSL and DC United have. They don't represent anyone right now regionally and are branded directly as a smaller version of a team in a rival league. The Chivas part is just a name, but at least represent someone so that they have a chance to sell out their stadium regularly. There's no reason why they shouldn't be able to do that in the Los Angeles area.
I brought some casual fans to the Chivas game here last year and they asked me "Where were they from." Than is not a good thing, people support teams because in some way they feel they represent them but to think that the economy class team at the Home Depot Center represents the USA, that is a joke.
I enjoy the "name needs to be in the teams name" argument... Someone should tell Arsenal (and many other football clubs the world over) that.
MLS is the way too west heavy. Pretty much, almost half of the US and Canada live in Eastern time, about 1/3 in Central, and about 1/5 in Pacific/Mountain. But team wise it's about 37% East, 21% Central, and 42% West. Every expansion team for the foreseeable future should be in Eastern/Central time to balance it out. The rest of the world isn't the US. In the US, very few teams have neither a city nor state in their name. Offhand I can think of only one other at the Major League level, which is the Golden State Warriors. Even at the AAA level, there are only a handful, named after regions rather than cities/states, such as the Lehigh Valley Iron Pigs, Adirondack Phantoms, or Lake Erie Monsters. And really, Arsenal is an exception among European teams as well. Most teams over there just go by Cityname FC.
Even at that, the teams you mention give you some idea of their location. "Golden State" is one of the official nicknames of California. That name is only confusing because there are four teams in the state, so using something more specific would be wise (IE SF Bay Warriors).
And it helps that when they first moved there, they had a more specific place name (San Francisco Warriors). For that matter, Arsenal started life as something more specific like Royal Woolwich Arsenal or somesuch. It's fine, if you're a very established brand, not to have a place name. If you're not, it's probably more helpful to have one.
You're citing a single exception and vaguely referring to some others. Place names take precedence in England, not quirky names like Arsenal. Even then, globally speaking, that happens mainly in cities with multiple teams. Most clubs don't even have official nicknames because the name of their town, borough or region is what matters most.
The Cosmos and Metrostars both had a few years where they had no location in their names. I don't know why, considering New York itself is the most recognizable American name around the world. I guess the Cosmos felt they were bigger than just the city, a true global brand. Metrostars, not so much. I like the uniqueness of the name Golden State Warriors, but I'll like San Francisco Warriors a lot more when they inevitably move across the bay. And change their logo back to the Golden Gate Bridge. I hope they bring back the cable car numbers on the back too. Yea, this post doesn't have much to do with Sacramento. It's a nice place though, sometimes.