Well since Austin has shown up, I would add Sacramento to make 2 added in the west to offset the 2 in the east (Nash and Miami) I know those 2 in the east have a head start, so its either an unbalanced conference set up or move Chicago to the west until Austin and Sacramento open up. I am sure Chicago would not like that, so I think an unbalanced schedule for a year would have to work. I only put Sacramento ahead of St Louis as they have their stadium deal and followed through on getting another deep pocket owner. After this, I can see NCFC & Detroit in the east and St Louis and Phoenix in the West. - I know we all feel we would get to 32 at some point, but do you think there would be anyway to go beyond that? What i mean is , 32 is the same as pretty much all the other professional sports leagues in the USA, but the size is larger than most traditional leagues around the world. So is there an MLS-2 in the future, or a re-alignment with USL-P and USL-1 to the point that all 3 of these leagues end up at around 20? Or something else unexpectedly happens?
Yes, MLS could go beyond 32. Will they? Hard to say. No, none of those things is going to happen. MLS-2 is not going to happen, at least made up of teams that are already in MLS. Right now MLS, USL-C, and USL-1 are over 70 total teams. That number is not going to get smaller. OK, maybe "something else unexpectedly happens?" which, by definition, is unpredictable.
What's really cool about that is there are still large markets outside of those leagues that don't have teams; Providence, Baltimore, Virginia Beach, Jacksonville, Cleveland, Buffalo, Detroit, Milwaukee, New Orleans.
------------------ I guess i am amazed enough we have close to 70 "professional" level teams. I would be the first to tell you, I would have never predicted that. Heck, when MLS fell from 12 to 10 teams, I wasn't even predicting the future of MLS at that point.
To be fair, there were 61 pro teams in 1995 and 79 in 1998, so it's not unprecedented. It's just been an absolute explosion over the past 5 years after spending over a decade with less than 45 pro teams.
Ha! I guess. This isn't it, though. I mean, how long did it take after Austin before Garble starting hinting at 30 instead of 28, a month? Again, if MLS wants to go bigfoot in terms of footprint, they could go to 48 easily under an MLB type format. You just wouldn't play everyone every year. Or the other conference much/if at all until PO time. There would be advantages. It maximizes our biggest strength as a footballing nation: SIZE. If we can have 36, 38, 40, or 48 functioning MLS teams with academies, lower league teams owned by said clubs (or affiliated), scouting, and such, it increases our ability to turn our talent pool into players. It also opens up more spots for young american players to occupy on first team rosters. Still, at 36 you could play everyone once and 3 rival teams twice for 38. Or 1 once for 36. Could do the same at 38 for 38. Beyond that, cannot play everyone once. And 36/38 is almost double the EPL in terms of # of teams.
This just isn't happening. They just blew thru 12 bidders with only 2 making the grade. The reason they are looking past 28 is because Austin had up an attended expansion spot in order to resolve the Columbus cluster. It's 30 maybe 32 some day. So it's time to stop living in a dream and face reality.
In addition I am going to go out on a limb and predict that the next will be: #28 Sacramento #29 St. Louis #30 Phoenix. And that's it for now. There's nothing realistic past that..
---------- Like your list. My #31 & #32 would be North Carolina and Detroit to fill some geographical gaps
Its gonna be fun looking back at how consistently wrong you are regarding all things expansion. Stopping at 30? Already given up there? 3 Conferences? Not happening. You are the 30/3 poster correct? Forgive me if I am confusing you. Alternatively, I will look back & eat crow. Almost certainly in at some point: Sac, Phoenix, St. Louis, Detroit, San Antonio, SD, Charlotte or Raleigh. That is 35 right there and we haven't even mentioned Tampa, the other NC bid, Vegas, Indy, or some up and coming smaller bid. The more I think on it, the more I think Vermes is right. 40+. Plus, it is an elegant solution to pro/rel: just put everyone in D1.
Many of the markets will never see the light of day. San Antonio, Indy, Vegas and Raleigh will never happen. They just blew thru 12 bidders with only finding 2 worthy ownership groups. At this rate to reach a 40 club number would require 120 bidders. 40+ will never happen there will never be enough deep pockets to support that number. There will come a time when the tipping point will be reached and the economics just won't make sense. You can only split the SUM pie so far till expansion fee won't keep up with SUM revenue dollars and owners will put a halt to expansion. Yes, the tipping point is coming and coming soon.
---------- As much as I like California, not sure we need 5 teams, assuming Sacramento gets in. So this is where the issue of what size does MLS really need to be or is going to be. There are a lot of large cities that will not make the cut even if the league gets to 32 because of the size of the country. Thus, I would like to see an MLS 2 or involve USL and create the professional pyramid, separate from amateur or semi pro etc. With the size of the country, MLS + USL-P + USL 1, "could" really be structured into 3 - 20 team levels/divisions. 60 professional teams would make our sport stand out and blanket the country. Fantasy would be an AFL +NFL type merger, have all 3 divisions owned together- even if single entity and yes, even take a shot at a limited pro -rel between the 3 to give an edge to the season. Not sure now the finances works on something like this, but like I said its a fantasy. Support these 60 teams with the academy programs and we should start to find some more gems of players. I would have a separate pyramid for amateur or semi pro leagues (NPSL, NISA, PDL, UPSL) and some kind of a pyramid structure for youth or players who want to go to school up to the college levels (AYSO, club, high school, junior college, NAIA, NCAA) Each has its own merits and players will go the route they fits them best. As much as I appreciate what MLS has done, I sometimes feel its hurts the overall development of soccer in this country. They have a business to run, thats why I think we need a separate professional pyramid, separate from what the other groups are trying to do.
Why not, baseball has five teams in California. California is rated the biggest soccer supporting state in the nation.
As you can see I'm not the only one in favor of a three conference re-alignment. https://ussoccerplayers.com/2018/04/when-will-mls-reconsider-the-conferences.html
Please correct me if I'm wrong, and I am sure someone will, but outside of the first 10 has there ever been a franchise granted primarily because of geographic location? In the reverse do we know of any bids that were denied because of their geographic location? When I think back to MLS expansion I see a pretty clear and consistent ranking of priorities 1) Ownership group, which can trump EVERYTHING ELSE. Please see NYFC. 2) Stadium 3) Market which includes media market, demographics, corporate footprint, fans etc. And then maybe a distant fourth is geographic location. I am sure it's part of the discussion but don't see any evidence it plays a major role. Is their an expansion I am missing where it did?
IMO, ownership and stadium are 1a and 1b. Orlando, Cincinnati, Nashville, and St. Louis, maybe even LAFC, have great ownership, good enough to get in, but they wouldn't/won't get in without the stadium. People like to use NYFC as an example against the expansion formula, but I think NY is an exception to the rule because well, their NY. NY means biggest everything. You put a team in NY anyway you can with or without a stadium as long as you have big owners. Sacramento is proof of your priority order it would seem but if they had great ownership and no stadium plan, they wouldn't get in. I agree with your original point, that at this point, I don't think MLS cares about geographic location near as much as your 1,2,3. Again, just my opinion
Garber just so happened to touch on the subject of location as it relates to future expansion in this interview from USAToday: https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...s-don-garber-reaching-new-heights/2992017002/ “We're very thoughtful and strategic about expansion,” Garber said. “It's not out of need, it's out of strategic opportunity. We want to cover more of our country, we want to have more geographic regions that can be connected so that you can have rivalries between potentially a St. Louis and a Kansas City or a Los Angeles and San Jose, and being able to have those kinds of rivalries that we think can drive our fan base.” And allow me to put on my "over-analyzing-every-word-of-every-quote-spoken-by-the-commissioner" hat and point out that he mentioned potential rivalries with "a St. Louis and a Kansas City," but not "Sacramento and San Jose."
========================== Just don't see how STL jumps SAC. SAC has their stadium deal done, has a base of 11,000 fans per game as a base point (and they have drawn 20,000 in the past) and now has the deep pocket owner the league insisted on. IF the league passes on them, they would have to be upset - why would the league tell them to get another owner and then not select them ??? Might was well bring AUSTIN- STL- SAC all on in the west (2021 or even 2022) and find a couple of markets in the east as the balance point and be done. These 3 teams all have instant rivals waiting for them which should help.
The irony here is that last season, during what MLS billed as "Rivalry Week," Los Angeles played Los Angeles. I don't remember who SJ played but it wasn't Galaxy. I think what's more telling is what Garber recently told Twellman, "...we've broken the mould so many different times and different ways with expansion." 'Ya think? http://www.espn.com/soccer/major-le...world-football-after-seismic-shift-don-garber