Why not Chivas San Antonio???

[needsashower]

Here are few reasons I have come up with to support this idea:

1. It's very close to Mexico.
2. The Mayor of San Antonio is eager to bring MLS to the Alamodome.
3. MLS would be the primary tennant.
4. An interstate rival to Dallas could bost attendance and media coverage to the Burn.
5. Alamodome would become a premier soccer venue in this country.
6. San Antonio Goats!
7. Dome is climate controlled therefore friendlier to the players in August.
8. Will not infringe upon another major market teams fan base.

[needsashower]

9. No frikkin baseball in San Antonio.

[needsashower]

10. First match at the new SSS in Frisco, Burn vs. interstate rival SA Chivas.

[needsashower]

11. The following week, first match at the new Soccer Specific AlamoDome, SA Chivas v. interstate rival Dallas Burn.

[uclacarlos]

8. Will not infringe upon another major market teams fan base.
Even the Fire have stated that Chivas wouldn't impede on their fan base but rather galvanize it.

The Alamodome would only be a short-term option, so NO it wouldn't be the premier facility in the country.

[needsashower]

Short term option? No, a permanent home to an MLS frachise. What soccer facility in this country outside an NFL stadium could compete with the alamodome?

[uclacarlos]

Yeah. :rolleyes:

Even the mayor has stated the absolute necessity of anything but the dome. MLS doesn't want it.

[worldfootballgenius]

chivas san antonio makes a hell of a lot of sense. this would be a good option.

[Centennial]

chivas san antonio makes a hell of a lot of sense. this would be a good option.

That is the very reason not to bring them to San Antonio because it makes the most sense. Since when has MLS ever made any sense???

[Calexico77]

Since all I seem to do anymore is type my wandering thoughts on these boards. . . .


I think the time simply is not right for San Antonio, or the Alamodome. MLS is really hot for teams that either have existing fanbases to tap into (Chivas, Rochester), or can offer an SSS right away (OKC?)

The Alamodome is everything they don't want. It's big, ugly, empty (even if it's well supported - look at the Metrostars, 23K still looks empty), and has astroturf. At least Reliant stadium is new and has grass.

I know NY has turf and all of those things, but MLS is trying to move AWAY from that. Why bother if you are just going to start off with everything you hate, and no chance of a new SSS in the 4-year future?

Maybe in two years, when Frisco is done, Bridgeview finishing up, HDC firmly entrenched, Paetec filling up (hopefully in the MLS), and Metros actually breaking ground. . . .

using the Alamodome won't seem as big a deal, because the core teams have their own places.

[DiamondsYank]

Here are few reasons I have come up with to support this idea:

1. It's very close to Mexico.


This is precisely why San Antonio hasn't even been mentioned. When San Diego was brought up, Vergara said that if he wanted to place a team in that area, he'd place it in Tijuana, and he wasn't interested in placing a team in Tijuana. I can only imagine he'd feel the same way about San Antonio. Chicago is the best fit. It has a huge Mexican population (think about where the reference to 'Chicano' came from), and I think someone pointed out (or maybe it was an article I read, that the Mexican immigrants in Chicago come from the Guadalajara area in Mexico. Chicago makes the most sense, IMHO.

[DiamondsYank]

Short term option? No, a permanent home to an MLS frachise. What soccer facility in this country outside an NFL stadium could compete with the alamodome?

You are forgetting that the Alamodome is much too large for MLS SSS standards. MLS prefers a much more cozy, sub-20k, stadium. The idea is two fold. On the one hand, you create a much more lively atmosphere, and on the other hand, you don't show a lot of empty seats on national television.

[fireman451]

First off, the term "Chicano" has NOTHING to do with hispanics from Chicago. The term comes from the indian migrant agriculture workers from rural Mexico working in California in the early 20th century. The indians didn't (and some still don't) speak good Spansih, and called themselves Mechicanos, hence the term.

Secondly, the Alamodome is NOT the answer. As others have already said, too big, artificial turf and atmosphere are not soccer quality. The mayor of San Antonio is hot and bothered to fill that building with whatever her can, and rightfully so. San Antonio built the dome when it thought it had a chance (a snowball's chance) at getting an NFL team to move there. I believe the Los Angeles Rams were the primary target back in the late 80's and early 90's before moving to St Louis. The city would be better off lining up a season full of Monster Truck Rallies and a quarterly KISS concerts (that city lives for 70's and 80's rock bands). That's the kind of entertainment the masses in that city love.

Hey, I love that town. I used to live in San Antonio another lifetime ago but firmly believe that the Alamo city is not going to get MLS.

Go FIRE!!!

[DiamondsYank]

First off, the term "Chicano" has NOTHING to do with hispanics from Chicago. The term comes from the indian migrant agriculture workers from rural Mexico working in California in the early 20th century. The indians didn't (and some still don't) speak good Spansih, and called themselves Mechicanos, hence the term.


And your point of reference is?

You see, I'll admit that I was wrong in my statement of origin, but as I took the time to research the word, I find that you, too, are mistaken. It might be wise to do your homework before calling someone out.

http://www.nahj.org/resourceguide/intro2.html

Also, while we are on the topic of pointing things out, Indians are native to India, which is far, far away from Mexico or even California.

That being said, it still doesn't take away from the fact that Chicago has a large Mexican immigrant base (second to Los Angeles, unless I'm mistaken, in which case, by all means, go ahead and call me out on that, too). I still believe Chicago is the most logical choice and with the incumbent Fire aparently ok with the placement of Chivas there, I don't see why it's taking MLS so long to make it official.

[kpaulson]

And your point of reference is?

You see, I'll admit that I was wrong in my statement of origin, but as I took the time to research the word, I find that you, too, are mistaken. It might be wise to do your homework before calling someone out.

http://www.nahj.org/resourceguide/intro2.html

Actually, his homework was done. The word 'chicano' is tricky and has murky origins, but your link above doesn't actually disagree with what he said.

Second, what he said is a pretty widely-accepted explanation:

"Chicano
A relatively recent term that has been appropriated by many Mexican descendants as unique and therefore reflective of their unique culture, though its first usage seems to have been discriminatory. The most likely source of the word is traced to the 1930 and 40s period, when poor, rural Mexicans, often native Americans, were imported to the US to provide cheap field labor, under an agreement of the governments of both countries. The term seems to have come into first use in the fields of California in derision of the inability of native Nahuatl speakers from Morelos state to refer to themselves as "Mexicanos," and instead spoke of themselves as "Mesheecanos," in accordance with the pronunciation rules of their language (for additional details, refer to the file MEXICO on this same subdirectory). An equivocal factor is that in vulgar Spanish it is common for Mexicans to use the "CH" conjunction in place of certain consonants in order to create a term of endearment. Whatever its origin, it was at first insulting to be identified by this name. The term was appropriated by Mexican-American activists who took part in the Brown Power movement of the 60s and 70s in the US southwest, and has now come into widespread usage. Among more "assimilated" Mexican-Americans, the term still retains an unsavory connotation, particularly because it is preferred by political activists and by those who seek to create a new and fresh identity for their culture rather than to subsume it blandly under the guise of any mainstream culture."

http://www.azteca.net/aztec/chicano.html

Also, while we are on the topic of pointing things out, Indians are native to India, which is far, far away from Mexico or even California.

Really? I'm part Indian (Iroquois) and I'm native to the US. I'd use caution when using the term 'Indian', but everyone knows what it means.

Just take your lumps and move on. We all make mistakes.

[uclacarlos]

You see, I'll admit that I was wrong in my statement of origin, but as I took the time to research the word, I find that you, too, are mistaken. It might be wise to do your homework before calling someone out.
http://www.nahj.org/resourceguide/intro2.html
The article is all fine and dandy, and it is quite level-headed. however, it ignores where the term 'hispano' comes from in Spanish and why precisely it emerged in 16th century English.

The term 'Hispanus' is Latin for somebody from the Roman province Hispania, which was most of the Iberian peninsula that today we call Spain. Shoot forward to the 15th century and in 1492 Columbus landed in the Dominican Republic and named the island Hispaniola after the roman province, and the name remains today. In Spanish a person from the island is/would be called 'hispano'. Due to the island's importance in a world that was quickly about to change forever, that is how 'hispano' was re-introduced into other European languages, including English.

[DiamondsYank]

It might be wise to take your own advice. I'm Osage and Choctaw and I'm native to North America.

We Indians know who we are and we tend not to call refer to ourselves nor take our vailidation from the PC term 'native American'.

I never said I would use the PC term in its place. I just said that 'Indians' are from India. If you want to continue to use an incorrect term dating back to when Christopher Columbus stumbled across some islands and thought he was in India, then that's your choice. I would think that proud tribal folks would rather use the names of their respective tribes than a geographically incorrect term adopted by Westerners, but what do I know, right?

Edited to add that there is no such thing as a 'native American', since the tribal folk that were on this land were mostly nomadic in nature and probably came from elsewhere. It is also worth nothing that the land was not called 'America' until well after these peoples were well established, which makes the term that much more out of place.

[uclacarlos]

I prefer the Canadian term "first nation ppl."

[kpaulson]

I never said I would use the PC term in its place. I just said that 'Indians' are from India. If you want to continue to use an incorrect term dating back to when Christopher Columbus stumbled across some islands and thought he was in India, then that's your choice. I would think that proud tribal folks would rather use the names of their respective tribes than a geographically incorrect term adopted by Westerners, but what do I know, right?

Edited to add that there is no such thing as a 'native American', since the tribal folk that were on this land were mostly nomadic in nature and probably came from elsewhere. It is also worth nothing that the land was not called 'America' until well after these peoples were well established, which makes the term that much more out of place.

And America is a continent not a country. And tape worms are neither worms, nor, in fact, made of tape. However, that's what we call it.

Indians have been called Indians for five centuries. Some of us don't mind the term, and most of us use it in private. It's not really your business to tell us how we describe ourselves.

Your explanation of how there is no such thing as a Native American is bizarre. Most of tribal "folks" in North America were not, in fact, nomadic. They definitely came from "elsewhere" (about 15,000 years ago) but everyone came from elsewhere-- I think 15,000 years satisfies the residency requirement. And no, it's not "worth mentioning" that 'America' was not called 'America' when Indians came over the land bridge. What term would you use instead? We could instead use the Indian placename for the region but (1) would a placename exist for the entire continent? and (2) which language would you use? You do realize there were hundreds--so choosing one placename, let's say 'native leni lenape lander', would result in anishnabe people to be called by a name that they never used to apply to the continent.