I don't have the time or inclination to argue against an idea which solves a problem that doesn't exist and creates potentially existential flaws. I'll be happy to revisit your idea in a few decades when global warming has transformed our winter climate into something that won't necessarily cause hypothermia to people in shorts.
So, MLS (hypothetically for the scope of this discussion) scheduling to Dec 15 and from Feb 15 --as opposed to the current reality of MLS scheduling to Dec 1 and from March 2 -- is or would now be some significant (and hypothermia-causing) change to the league's operations? Note, I liked the answer given earlier in this thread:
I agree with this. And I do not know if playing league games in parts of Dec and Feb would actually help MLS do better within the CCL, but I don't see how it would be a hindrance to that important goal for the league. If, by whatever metric, MLS wants to be "top league" (by 2022, or whenever), certainly success within Concacaf's club competition is going to be one easy item for MLS and observers to track. CCL success is a viable and smart medium term goal. And if MLS scheduling tweaks are something that MLS believes will help its teams toward that goal, then I would expect continued scheduling tweaks (and a shortening of the inactive period MLS clubs have from league play for Dec-Feb) from MLS in both the short and medium term. (And I honestly don't think those league scheduling minor adjustments would come at the "expense of a chunk of your domestic calendar and its gate receipts.")
Concerning the CCL, I think some of Garber's statements are at odds with the economic realities that the owners have to face. Adrian Hanauer spoke about the CCL at some length at our end of year business meeting. The first 2 years the Sounders participated in the tournament, the ownership spent a good deal of money on marketing in the hope that the fan base would take to it as it had with league games. The games averaged around 15k at a lower price point than regular league games. The owners concluded that the return on the money spent was not worth continuing the marketing campaign. The average dropped to 7k this last go around. The availability of relatively cheap tickets drew a good number of fans to these games. After witnessing a preseason game in a downpour at Qwest, I thought we had about 15k die hard fans. In light of the recent CCL matches, I have since altered that view to be around 5k. These are the folks you do not have to market to. They will sell out a game at Starfire within minutes and completely pack the place. It doesn't matter what the tourny or who the opponent is, they will show up. So if we assume for a moment that my gut number is shared by the ownership, I really can't see them risking their business. In other words, from the owners perspective, CCL probably doesn't factor too highly in their considerations about a possible schedule change. They are more likely concerned with how it will change MLS regular season attendance.
People sure like to bring up December 1 when there was exactly one MLS game after November 18 and only 9 games after the first weekend in November last year. 329 games were played between March 10 and November 4.
heated fields like in england? and proper field maintenance? shouldnt be an issue. but we are not there I suppose.
Agreed. And that's the interesting question. How would such a move (i.e. hypothetically and roughly taking a team's mid-June home date and moving it to Nov, and taking a team's late June or nearby home date and moving it to late Feb) affect MLS regular season attendance? The league certainly appears to be pushing the late/Oct and early March dates (for regular season use) in recent seasons, and they're learning a lot about just want the marketplace of ticket buyers can handle (or prefers), in terms of the weeks/months when MLS league matches are played (or not). Fair point. And March 10 and Nov 4 were will the earliest and latest start and "end" dates for the league in 2012, relative to their "shorter season" in years past. And MLS might very well continue to (slightly) push those boundaries in 2013 and future seasons. It's not like the expanded season footprint in 2012 did much to prevent 2012 from being the best attendance year MLS has ever had. The league is growing and improving as a business, and they are making operational decisions that their market can handle. (and yes, at some point, playing in too much of the winter could start to negatively impact the overall attendance average -- and ticket revenue -- but I do think MLS will slowly and wisely determine what their business can absorb, and even thrive within, while limiting the amount of off-season downtime in Dec/Jan/Feb.)
I don't know that the issue is one of infrastructure as opposed to how many people would sit in RBA or Toyota Park, let alone BMO in February.
How's that going to help the road condition for people getting to the games (one of the reasons explicitly mentioned by the Rapids when they cancelled their Charity Shield match against Seattle in March of 2011)?
well hopefully they wont have a team anymore with that field located in the middle of nowhere. need public transportation etc and a downtown stadium etc... Im not trolling. im serious. colorado has great fans its just disapointing you have to go outside of denver to get to the stadium. those fans deserved better. if 60k will go to the broncos outdoors then we can get 18k outdoors to the rapids.
And this confirms what I thought from the other thread, you're a troll. Ismitje, clean-up on aisle 3!
No the field is not located in denver proper. there isnt a lot around dicks sporting goods park. it would have been nice if they had placed the field near coors field or the other sports arenas in denver rather than a suburb.
I mean it is 9 miles from coors field sure but its such an enormous difference. it just doesnt feel the same as if the field could be around commons park or confluence park with all of the sports in denver. it just feels outside. it would have been better in the middle of the sports metroplex of denver. I think rapid fans got shortchanged.
You mean like when they were at Invesco field and they were drawing less fans under KSE? It didn't matter where the park was, until KSE figured out they actually had to market to the right demographic (which they only did about 2-3 years ago) attendance was going to suck. Either way, hoping that a team gets pulled from a market is border-line trolling.
NO I mean I wish Dicks sporting good park was built closer to all of the other sporting venues. it deserves to stand along with them instead of on the far east side of town near arsenal park.
Move the stadiums, build domes, give complementary snow chains to all season ticket holders....duh! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!
I love this revisionist history, or at least some Monday morning quarterbacking when it comes to building soccer stadia in this country. I am sure all parties would like to build world class stadia in the downtown heart of cities. Perhaps you weren't around when these were being built, but I can tell you, it was hard even to get these built where they were. It's not like you can simply wave your magic wand and get one built in the absolute ideal location. (After being somewhat close to what happened in Chicago for the Fire stadium and seeing what Peter Wilt had to go through to get that thing built, I am surprised it got built at all!)
Location of the stadium doesn't change the transportation issues. Putting it downtown in Denver doesn't magically make it possible or likely that the majority of the population can get to the game in bad weather. "Public transportation" isn't the answer.
Ditto here in Houston, Though we did get our downtown location, it wasn't easy and it took years to accomplish and deals to be made that, on the surface, don't do much to help our bottom line.
And if you get an ice or snow(!) storm, underground heating isn't the only thing standing between a postponed game and a sellout crowd.
If we got a snowstorm, I think everyone would be too busy having snowball fights and making snowmen to worry about a silly soccer game. Ice storm...ugh. Had that I think Winter of 11. No thanks.
Well, it shows how a little political capital can go a long way - right connections, right time, right place, all that stuff. In the earlier days (even just a few years earlier), MLS had NO political capital. MLS still gets scoffed at (if you read the Mets reaction to MLS dismissing their "advances" to lure the NY team to CitiField.)