I moved the qoute here since it is a better thread for my answer. The east is full of options (Investors willing) but the west is more limited (with the 750K rule thing). Looking west of the Mississippi, MSA's with 750K that have no soccer are: Well LA has options if you get a team somewhat away from Carson, many MSA’s are listed apart from Greater LA. Then Alburquerque Las Vegas Hawaii Fresno San Francisco Oakland Tucson Phoenix (Latest is that they will be back to USLPRO) San Diego El Paso Saint Louis Austin Tulsa Omaha McAllen Texas You have Calgary in Canada You could also add New Orleans and Baton Rouge, technically I believe they are west of the River. Some that are “close” or > 600K Little Rock Colorado Springs Boise Wichita Des Moines and Jackson are below the 600K.
So really only 14 good options west of the Mississippi are left open (15 if we include Calgary, 16 if we include Winnipeg) LA great area could hold 1 or 2 more teams (depending on what Chivas USA does) And then about 8 more that would be iffy.
Geography and reading comprehension apparently aren't prerequisites courses for getting a Big Soccer membership.
Alburquerque Austin El Paso Las Vegas Omaha Saint Louis Tulsa These cities are primed for NASL expansion; there are faciliies in these cities capable of housing an NASL franchise and in some cases an MLS franchise for the short term. Austin and Tulsa are cities which would embrace NASL soccer. Austin (MSA, 1.8 million) which is nestled between Houston & San Antonio could handle a major league franchise. Las Vegas & Austin have replaced Norfolk-Virginia Beach as the largest metropolitan areas without major professional sports (MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, MLS). Austin & Tulsa would definitely improve the league as the NASL migrates west of the Mississippi. You would have some interesting rivalries among San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Austin & Tulsa.
Austin has to be on the NASL radar for the near future. With all that tech money floating around and the success of the Aztecs and the natural San Antonio rivalry. It is a soccer fan's wet dream. As a Scorpion fan, traveling to Austin would be awesome. I wish that we could at least manage a friendly with their PDL team. It makes too much sense, so it probably won't happen.
You're forgetting Canadian expansion: Calgary, Winnipeg and Hamilton. All these cities have CFL teams.
Why don't you just keep naming cities? You're like a human Manifest Destiny. You can keep naming cities of a certain size all you want, but the truth is this: just as telling people there's a game is not the same thing as selling them a ticket to that game, putting a team in a city near a bunch of people is no guarantee that a lot of those people are going to come watch that team play, regularly or otherwise.
Tell that to MLS when they started. It was a tough road, but they are certainly maintaining themselves for nearly 2 decades.
yeah, but MLS is the top tier. With that comes a lot of media coverage, games televised, more lucrative sponsorships, higher quality, the results of your matches on ESPN and in the local newspaper. I could go on. Lower division clubs can find success in this country. But its not simply a case of "if you build it they will come". Lower division clubs have to operate entirely in a different reality. They have to become much more community oriented. They have to build that local fan base out of nothing without the exposure MLS teams have. Some lower division clubs really know what they're doing (San Antonio Scorpion, Orlando City) and then some are just shockingly clueless (LA Blues)
It's no secret that the MLS wants to gobble up all the big name & name recognition markets first. Sure they have Real Salt Lake which covers Utah. Rochester & Tulsa are cities which are among the smaller markets like Salt Lake City capable of supporting MLS long term. Would Rochester be willing to enter the league under the New York name brand, or Tulsa under the Oklahoma umbrella? Had Rochester and/or Tulsa entered the MLS during its inauguration founding like the Green Bay scenario with the NFL; then there wouldn't be an issue. MLS is looking for name recognition cities moving forward or cities willing to align with the state name. Tulsa was an established member in the old NASL; however, the MLS and the new NASL are focusing on cities that have a current Fab Four (MLB, NFL, NBL, NHL) within its boundaries; hence Jacksonville (NFL) and Oklahoma City (NBA) with Virginia Calvary using the state's name. The NASL wants to compete with the MLS much the competing leagues in MLB (NL, AL). David Stern was pushing for the Oklahoma City Thunder to be called the Oklahoma Thunder; much like the 'Indiana Pacers & Utah Jazz' favoring the state's name upon entering the NBA; however, Oklahoma City officials had made it clear that the NBA brand would take the city's name which also favors the state. The investment of having an NBA franchise in Oklahoma City was to market the city as well as the State of Oklahoma. The original NASL has cities like Fort Lauderdale Strikers, Tulsa Roughnecks & Memphis Rogues long before Memphis became an NBA city. It's all about marketing the name brand. OKC is considered among the smallest NBA markets like Salt Lake City, Memphis and New Orleans; however, the New Orleans name brand has global recognition as a city; more so than Memphis, Oklahoma City and Salt Lake City. That's why OKC is often referred to as the smallest market in the NBA. Let's face it, there are only three pure big markets: New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. There are large markets like Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Miami, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Francisco-Oakland, Seattle, St. Louis and Washington D.C. Markets like Buffalo, Kansas City, Milwaukee & New Orleans are well established with name recognition throughout. Sure, there are others which may have been omitted; please don't take offense. Name recognition is the branding which is being pushed by the MLS and NASL today for long-term viability moving forward.
Or when it suits them. Not to get a jump on the NASL, which is, largely, a non-factor in their decision-making. As it should be. The "brand name" means eff-all. Does said market - regardless of what you call it - add to the league's overall goals, per decision of the Board of Directors? That's the decision to be made. Looking at where they have gone and where they are going and are likely to, it doesn't seem like a Rochester or a Tulsa fits the profile that has been seen as attractive of late. ( a ) But they didn't. ( b ) Rochester could have been in early in the 21st century if they could have scraped up the cash when they were a hot item. They couldn't. They didn't. Pffffffft. "Align with the state name" my ass. That's ancillary. If you want to call yourself Minnesota, knock yourself out. You wouldn't be the first. But that's far down their list. It's market and owner and stadium. ( a ) And I want to date Kate Beckinsale ( b ) Please, God, I beg you, stop frigging calling it "The MLS." Last time (for now): "The NFL" = "The National Football League" = "The League" "The NBA" = "The National Basketball Association" = "The Association" "The MLS" = "The Major League Soccer" = "The Soccer?" You know they called themselves the Indiana Pacers at launch in the 1960s, right? Not when they came into the NBA in 1976. And, yet...if they don't get the ownership and stadium stuff right, it doesn't really matter what the ******** the team is called. You get it?
If only the Philadelphia Union were named the Pennsylvania Union... REVENUE WOULD TRIPLE! oh well hindsight is 20/20.
it was the taxpayers (you know the ones who payed for the arena) who wanted the team to be called the Oklahoma City Thunder. That being said had the team been the Oklahoma Thunder it would have failed miserably. It's called knowing your customer/fan base
Just giving you an observation fellas... kenntomasch, settle down dude, you zoom in on the negative side toward anything anybody posts on the forum--it's not worth the internal stress. thomas 19064; Philadelphia has name-recognition (Philadelphia Phillies, Philadelphia Eagles, Philadelphia 76ers, Philadelphia Flyers), this is a top ten market there's no need to call itself Pennsylvania. mikehurst, correction: it wasn't the taxpayers, OKC Mayor Mick Cornett and the ownership group headed by Clay Bennett were behind the Oklahoma City Thunder push...
Don't forget the Wisconsin Packers, Florida Jaguars, Northern California Kings, Northern California Warriors, Oklahoma Thunder, Maryland Orioles, etc. Then there's the curious case of the Florida Marlins going the other direction.
GO BACK & REVIEW POST #90, last two paragraphs: Many of these cities I covered as having name-recognition (The big markets, large markets and the well established with name recognition). These cities have franchises in major professional sports (MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL). * Green Bay was the NFL first franchise and it is city owned. Is it safe to say that Green Bay has name-recognition? Judging by replies, some of you have read more into Post #90; eg., when mention was made of Rochester & Tulsa possibly favoring the state names (New York & Oklahoma respectively) since those cities don't have the name-recognition that the MLS & NASL would like; that was just my observation...
Answering the question directly.... ....if NASL has 16 stable teams playing in their own stadiums or very friendly soccer confines it would be tremendous. Anything above that would all be gravy. Here's hoping for more Indy type scenarios, and hoping they can last the long haul.
Um...you might want to check Kenn's post on the financial cluster Indy is having about the supposed MLS level stadium.
Well, for NASL that is a good problem to have, I mean most other NASL clubs would sell their mother for what Indy11 is doing (does not mean they will be able to keep it up or translate it to MLS/SS).