4 Expansion Teams?

[empennage]

Originally posted by soccerdome
And OKC has 5,000 soccer fans and Diego only has 1,000. Where would be the logical place to expand?

If you're going to use hypothetical examples, at least make them realistic. I've been to multiple games in San Diego involving Mexico with 50,000+. I've also been to a US game without Mexico with around 20,000. And before you bring up the Allstar game, it was poorly marketed and still got a decent showing. The SD Spirit is a WUSA team that averages over 6,000 and the Sockers have been know to get 10,000+ in attendance. There are plenty of soccer fans in the San Diego/Tijuana area.

Also population size does matter, because soccer fans and people in attendance at a soccer game are not mutually exclusive. I'm sure there are plenty of people who aren't soccer fans that go to MLS games. So if an areas population base is larger, than in general more people will go to games. The SD metro area is about 2.5 million plus an additional 1 million+ in Tijuana that usually isn't included in the SD metro area.

There may be good reasons to keep MLS out of SD (ie. lack of stadium/owner), but lack of support is not one of them. IMHO, San Diego would be able to do better than San Jose.

[empennage]

Originally posted by rhydogg
I think Phoenix or San Diego would be the best for a new team.

Phoenix would be a good area because it is growing fast, and has the potential for a lot of support. But, weather is always an issue when it comes to Phoenix. Unless there was a stadium with a dome, I don't think the league would ever allow games to regularly be played in 110 degree heat. Although after the new Cardinals stadium gets built, it might just be a viable option.


Useless factoid: The city of Mesa has more people in it than the city of St. Louis.

[bright]

Originally posted by empennage


Phoenix would be a good area because it is growing fast, and has the potential for a lot of support. But, weather is always an issue when it comes to Phoenix. Unless there was a stadium with a dome, I don't think the league would ever allow games to regularly be played in 110 degree heat. Although after the new Cardinals stadium gets built, it might just be a viable option.

Is Phoenix hotter than Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Tampa, and Miami? Is Phoenix more humid than Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Tampa, and Miami?

- Paul

[empennage]

Originally posted by bright


Is Phoenix hotter than Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Tampa, and Miami? Is Phoenix more humid than Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Tampa, and Miami?

- Paul

Yes it's hotter than those places you mentioned, and no it's not as humid.

Phoenix average temps (http://www.weather.com/outlook/travel/vacationplanner/climatology/monthly/85281)

Dallas average temps (http://www.weather.com/outlook/travel/vacationplanner/climatology/monthly/USTX0327)

Miami average temps (http://www.weather.com/outlook/travel/vacationplanner/climatology/monthly/USFL0316)


Here's the average high temperatures for July:

Phoenix = 106

Dallas = 95

Miami = A cool 89


Trust me, it is hot in Phoenix. It's not unusual to get 115 degree days. It's a dry heat, but it still sucks ass.

[USRufnex]

Originally posted by empennage


If you're going to use hypothetical examples, at least make them realistic. I've been to multiple games in San Diego involving Mexico with 50,000+. I've also been to a US game without Mexico with around 20,000.


Yes, and THAT'S the problem: Will fans of Mexico and MFL consistently show up at San Diego games?


And before you bring up the Allstar game, it was poorly marketed and still got a decent showing. The SD Spirit is a WUSA team that averages over 6,000 and the Sockers have been know to get 10,000+ in attendance.


Sockers? Outdoors. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Certainly they found large crowds for a perenially successful indoor team. Here they are anyway:

1978- 5591 (18-12)
1979- 11271 (15-15)
1980- 12690 (16-16)
1981- 14802 (21-11)
1982- 8532 (19-13)
1983- 4214 (11-19)
1984- 5702 (14-10)

Compare to San Jose:
1978- 14281 (8-22)
1979- 15092 (8-22)
1980- 13169 (9-23)
1981- 12400 (11-21)
1982- 11012 (13-19)
1983- 11933 (20-10)*
1984- 10676 (8-16)
*name changed to "Golden Bay" Earthquakes much like the MLS team tried to do by changing the name from Clash to 'Quakes.

Compare to Ft.L/Miami:
1978- 10479 (16-14)
1979- 13774 (17-13)
1980- 14279 (18-14)
1981- 13324 (18-14)
1982- 12345 (18-14)
1983- 10823 (14-16)
**1984- 14263 (14-10)**
**team moved to the Metrodome as the "Minnesota Strikers"

Compare to Tulsa: (knew this was coming, didn't ya :) 1978- 11207 (15-15)
1979- 16425 (14-16)
1980- 19787 (15-17)
1981- 17188 (17-15)
1982- 14469 (16-16)
1983- 12415 (17-13)
1984- 7797 (10-14)

These numbers can get very confusing: to the point where many who weren't there like to call them "MEANINGLESS."

All I can say is it is just one measurement of many and gives a small edge that sometimes has more to do with front office/local marketing expertise than actually fan support... just because the fans WERE there then doesn't mean they'll come back 20 years later... ask Tampa. I can say that it is probably no coincidence that teams with good A-League attendance like Portland, Minnesota, Seattle, and Rochester had NASL experiences (Rochester played at a bad hs stadium--Holleder, while Seattle and Minn. were very successful--much like Tampa-- while Portland was moderately successful).

Boston averaged about 12,000 fans in '78 but moved from Foxboro to Nickerson Field the following year... eventually moving to Jacksonville.

Oakland averaged about 12,000 their first year in '78 but were inexplicably moved to Edmonton.

Denver averaged about 7500 fans (still higher than the Sockers) their first year and moved in '79 to Atlanta where they drew even worse...


There are plenty of soccer fans in the San Diego/Tijuana area.


But will they buy season tickets?


Also population size does matter, because soccer fans and people in attendance at a soccer game are not mutually exclusive.


Agreed. Yet NASL franchises (dare I say all sports) had differing fan bases in different markets. Atlanta has a bad reputation for not supporting it's teams. Los Angeles lost its NFL team to St. Louis after St. Louis moved to Cardinals to Arizona. Columbus has a miniscule hispanic population yet very high MLS attendance.


I'm sure there are plenty of people who aren't soccer fans that go to MLS games. So if an areas population base is larger, than in general more people will go to games.


not sure of that either... I think the general population of Columbus knows more about the Crew than the general population of the Bay Area/Chicago/NYC know about the Quakes/Fire/Metros due to the nature of the media coverage. A friend of mine in Boston who knows very little about soccer knew NE had a soccer team but thought the season ended sometime in August!?!


There may be good reasons to keep MLS out of SD (ie. lack of stadium/owner), but lack of support is not one of them. IMHO, San Diego would be able to do better than San Jose.

Changes in demographics (hispanic population/TV ratings/growth of youth soccer) help your argument, but I'm not necessarily convinced that SD would do any better than SJ...

...unless they had an owner and a good atmosphere/stadium in which to play.

The lesson here isn't about fan base... it's about blindly placing teams in cities like Tampa, Miami, SJ, Dallas based on some sort of NASL tradition or youth soccer demographics.

Now if San Diego (or Houston, or Seattle, or Philly, or Tulsa, or OKC) could come up with a season ticket drive of over 10,000 like Columbus did, hey... THAT'S WHAT I'D CALL FAN SUPPORT...

[USRufnex]

...got in a hurry typing... again...

NASL stats above are per game avg. outdoor attendance figures... the records next to them in parenthesis (win/loss... no ties, just shootouts--yuk!).

[soccerdome]

Originally posted by USRufnex
Originally posted by empennage


If you're going to use hypothetical examples, at least make them realistic. I've been to multiple games in San Diego involving Mexico with 50,000+. I've also been to a US game without Mexico with around 20,000.


Yes, and THAT'S the problem: Will fans of Mexico and MFL consistently show up at San Diego games?


Exactly right. Any time the US plays a Latin American team (especially our amigos south of the border) we are constantly outcheered and sometimes even outnumbered. Even though it sucks that this is capable of happening to Sams Army, it's the truth. So an area with a large latino population would be OK for MLS, but horrible for National games. Lets get some real support.

[irvine]

Perfect 16:

Eastern Conference

East Coast Division

Revolution
Metrostars
DC United
Miami/Philadelphia/2nd NY team

Great Lakes Division

Fire
Crew
Detroit
Cleveland/Milwaukee

Western Conference

West Coast Division

Seattle
Portland
SJ
LA

Southwest Division

Kansas City
Colorado
Dallas
Houston/San Antonio/OKC

And I'd do something similar to what the NHL did with regional rivalries: play teams in your division 4 times each (12 games), the other teams in your conference twice (8), one division in the opposing conference twice (8), and the other opposite division once (4). 32 games, good solid season. Or randomize which teams from the other conference you play once and which twice.

Please, nobody start the utopian whining about a single table. We're in America; if we're going to have soccer, we're going to do it the way we do all of our other sports.

[soccerdome]

First of all, I like the sound of Central Division better than Great Lakes Division. A minor bother. Secondly, I like having 3 divisions for at least right now. Also, we need 12 teams to start with (16 is going to be a long and hard road.) A team in Arizona wouldn't be bad for the Western division, maybe a switch with Portland. Just my opinion though.

[Lithium858]

I think if MLS bought the Sockers and advertised them right way they would get really good attendance for their games. It would be better than just starting from scratch with a team that no one has heard of and expect a great fan base. Even though this isn't the San Diego page, I still wanna post it here :)

[torquemada]

Originally posted by empennage

if CA was it's own country it'd have the 8th GDP in the world . . .

. . . until Colorado turned off the water.

[Jasonma]

Originally posted by torquemada


. . . until Colorado turned off the water.

...and Washington turned off the power...

[PirateNBama]

Originally posted by empennage


Phoenix would be a good area because it is growing fast, and has the potential for a lot of support. But, weather is always an issue when it comes to Phoenix. Unless there was a stadium with a dome, I don't think the league would ever allow games to regularly be played in 110 degree heat. Although after the new Cardinals stadium gets built, it might just be a viable option.


Useless factoid: The city of Mesa has more people in it than the city of St. Louis.

Actually, Phoenix kinda does have a stadium with a dome: the BoB, home of the Dbacks. wonder how scheduling could be worked out?

[AriesFlame]

Originally posted by rhydogg
I think Phoenix or San Diego would be the best for a new team. I know tons of soccer fans in Phoenix who crave soccer. Arizona doesn't have one division 1 soccer program. The state needs a major soccer team that all the fans of the game can watch and follow. I have watched numerous mls games in L.A. , Colo. , and San Jose. I have noticed the fans at all these game are about 80-90 % Hispanic. Phoenix has a very large hispanic population. I am almost certain if they got an MlS team their attendance would be better then most of the other mls teams. I feel this would be the case with San Diego also. It just seems the Hispanics, Latinos, etc... just get more into the games and supporting their teams then the average white American. I went to the Galaxy game tonight and it was about 90% hispanics. It was awesome to see how involved they were getting. It just seems like an another MLS team in the SouthWest would be more successful in the long run then one up north or elsewhere.

What's the average temperature in Phoenix? It may be difficult to schedule afternoon games given that summers are terribly hot in the southwest.

[AriesFlame]

Originally posted by PirateNBama


Actually, Phoenix kinda does have a stadium with a dome: the BoB, home of the Dbacks. wonder how scheduling could be worked out?

Answer: When pigs sprout wings. Either that or if Jerry Colangelo puts some cash in the team.

[empennage]

Originally posted by PirateNBama
Actually, Phoenix kinda does have a stadium with a dome: the BoB, home of the Dbacks. wonder how scheduling could be worked out?
Yeah, but I don't think MLS would want to play on a baseball diamond. It just wouldn't be suitable for a soccer team to play during baseball season.

Originally posted by AriesFlame
What's the average temperature in Phoenix? It may be difficult to schedule afternoon games given that summers are terribly hot in the southwest.
Check page 2 of this thread. I already posted the average temps for Phoenix.

[empennage]

Originally posted by torquemada
. . . until Colorado turned off the water.

Cali doesn't rely totally on Colorado river water. A significant portion of CA's water actually comes from Northern California. Anyway, Colorado would turn the water back on, after they couldn't get any agriculture from CA. ;)

Originally posted by Jasonma
...and Washington turned off the power...

Same as Colorado, they'd starve to death. ;)

[Jasonma]

Originally posted by empennage


Cali doesn't rely totally on Colorado river water. A significant portion of CA's water actually comes from Northern California. Anyway, Colorado would turn the water back on, after they couldn't get any agriculture from CA. ;)



Same as Colorado, they'd starve to death. ;)

Sorry, I live just above the Skagit Valley, I don't need the farms in California. 8-)

[empennage]

Originally posted by Jasonma


Sorry, I live just above the Skagit Valley, I don't need the farms in California. 8-)

Nevertheless, I'd be willing to bet that a lot of food from your local supermarket is grown in CA.

[Jasonma]

Originally posted by empennage


Nevertheless, I'd be willing to bet that a lot of food from your local supermarket is grown in CA.

A lot of the pre-packaged stuff, probably. Most of the fresh produce is local, except for things like citrus fruits and other plants that can't grow in the area.

OK, we are way, way off-topic now...