Many MLS fans are saying that the big ratings the Euros are pulling in this year might help MLS. But my opinion is that this will create more Euro Snobs as they will demand a better quality league and style of play that MLS can't currently provide and they will wonder why they can't buy Messi/Ronaldo/Rooney/Balotelli whats your thought?
There was an uptick in Euro tourney viewership in 2008 as well. How has the sport in the States gone since then? There is pretty much your answer.
Nothing has happened, I mean NBC ratings are awful and many teams (FC Dallas) are not doing so well in attendance. Also since 2008 many teams have had to rebrand to Euro type names.
Euro names have simply been the 2nd of 3 naming fads in MLS and dates before 2008, though unlike the first, it still continues a little bit. The first were a bunch of focus group-produced MTV names back in the 1990s ("soccer's cool"), followed by the Euro-copycat names ("soccer's international and people in other cool places love it"), followed by the latest trend, which would be NASL-era names ("soccer has history in this town, dig?"). In other words, it's just one of several marketing trends. And until they find some magic formula, they'll keep searching.
I am not sure what you mean by "many teams: had re-branded their names to Euro- typed names. Since the start of the league there have been only two teams that re- branded their team name to a Euro- typed name; FC Dallas in 2005 and Sporting Kansas City in 2011. In the case of SKC, the owner has pans of having several sports team, so the name is fitting for his plans. Several teams came into the league carrying Euro- typed names; DC United in 1996, Real Salt Lake in 2004, and FC Toronto in 2006. Houston is a an interesting case. The original name, Houston 1836 is similar to Munich 1860; however, due to a controversy, the name was changed to Dynamo. According the club, this name was chosen from an older club. So, it doesn't appear to be European inspired, but a mere coincidence. New York Red Bulls also changed their name, but it was named by the group that bought them. This is where is gets interesting. These are not the only clubs added. Vancouver Whitecaps, Montreal Impact, Seattle Sounders, Portland Timbers, and Philadelphia Union all added to the league between 2009- 2012. Also, Sand Jose Clash changed its name in 1999 to the Earthquake and in 2006 when it re- entered back into the league it retained its moniker when the original team left for Houston. I actually do not see a trend here. The rationale for establishing or re- branding varies from team to team. One interesting decision was Toronto. The owner wanted a moniker to developed naturally. It has, they are known as the "Reds." Incidentally, most baseball names we use today similarly developed. The only think I am not particularly fond of is the use of "FC" for a club name. We do not use the term "Football" for the game. A more appropriate name would be "SC." ---
And we And we would lose in Ecuador and Bolivia because of the altitude even though we would be better on paper.
Altitude helps when you are used to it, but with a proper preparation in advance of the game, if you are better you`ll win anyway. The rest is just lame excuses. Anyhow, Ecuador could beat anyone at sea level as well. They are full of individual talent.
This is based on what exactly? Ecuador has made it to TWO World Cup throughout their history and have never won Copa America. Bolivia last made the World Cup was in 1994 and before that it was in 1950. They did win ONE Copa America. People have really over exaggerated the strength of CONMEBOL. It is strong, but not every country is strong. Is it stronger than the top 10 countries in CONCACAF? Yes. Is it too strong for the top TWO teams in CONCACAF? No. Will it be more of a challenge? Yes. I believe we are good enough to finish in the top 6- 8 if such a situation existed. Plus, I think teams like Bolivia and Ecuador will do what they do now.... watch the World Cup from home. ---
Well only considering the 2 teams mentioned, from 1928 till nowdays, according to FIFA.com : Against Bolivia (currently 110 in FIFA rankings), the USA has never defeated them in all history, where most games were played in the USA. 2 victories by Bolivia and 4 draws (the only game in Bolivia ended as a draw, but in Santa Cruz, not in La Paz). Against Ecuador (currently 36), in history, the USA has 2 victories against 5 from Ecuador and 4 draws, where only one of those defeats was in Quito, and all the rest of the games were in the USA. Considering that these two teams are among the weakest in Conmebol, I don`t think your country would have much of a chance against them, playing a 2 match confrontation (home and visitor). Anyway our historic weakest team isn`t any of the above mentioned, but it is Venezuela (who actually is the second to last and are 40th in the FIFA rankings), who is battling for top places in 2014 Conmebol qualifiers, who in fact also eliminated us last year in Copa America, so I wouldn`t consider them a weak team at all. The main reason why Bolivia holds such a poor ranking, it is because they hardly ever play any friendlies or at most big tournament competition, mostly against other Conmebol teams so it is very hard for them to ever gain any points. But don`t let that fool you, they know pretty well how to play the game. One of their greatest stars of all times, played in the USA and before it in my team, Mr. Marcos Etcheverry, and he was almost at the level of Maradona. In an hypothetical qualifier against Conmebol teams, in the case of Mexico, we all know them alright, they may currently be at the top middle part (where we are actually), but the USA would be struggling very hard not to end as last. This would depend very strongly on you guys being able to win more often at home, as the weak teams from Conmebol rarely lose their home points, even against the big fish in the pond.
I just don't see how this could be possible. The distance between Mexico City and Baires is about 7400 KM, which is about the same distance from New York City to Moscow. If they were going to split the continent in half and have 2 groups, place Mexico with Ecuador,Colombia,Venezuela,Peru(Kind of pushing it) and then have, Argentina,Bolivia,Brasil,Uruguay,Chile,Paraguay in another group(To accommodate travel time with countries nearest to Mexico), will that seem possible? Will FIFA give another spot as a guarantee? And also fight for another spot? It would have 5.5 spots? Having Argentina,Brasil,Uruguay and Chile in the same bracket, will they also have an extra over the group above? Personally, I just don't see it happening. Since the 98 WC Qualifying Conmebol has gotten it right with placing everybody in a same bracket and playing each other twice. Going to the previous format with 2 groups, I just don't like it. And if there a single group with 11 teams, too much of a headache and travel time would be a disaster.
i like the old NASL names. Would love to see the LA Aztecs come back. some of the Euro names work: Toronto FC, DC United, Sporting KC etc best names IMO are the Seattle Sounders FC and Vancouver Whitecaps FC. Worst names : Real Salt Lake, Montreal Impact, and San Jose Earthquakes. How is a soccer club an Earthquake? i don't get it. It's arena league.
How is a soccer club an Aztec? Complaining about a team's nickname is just stupid. If the team isn't given a nickname, the fans come up with one anyway. That's why Toronto FC is very originally known as the "Reds" because they have a very clever fan base.
you may think it's stupid to call a team's nickname stupid. I don't. I think the Earthquake name is stupid. It's probably the lamest team name in all of sports.
I couldn't care less about games against Bolivia in the 90's. What do you think that proves? Honestly... And as for Ecuador, there are only two matches in the last 5 years with one a dominating win and one a close loss. I'm sorry, what point were you trying to make again?
Nevermind..just realized you were all for the LA Aztec name and are against the San Jose Earthquake name. I get it.
As evidenced by the World Cups that Portugal and the Netherlands have won thanks to their competition on UEFA
Peru usually plays their home games in Lima, which is, at sea level or bearly above it (although they also have some big, high altitude cities as Cuzco or Arequipa). Maybe you were thinking about Ecuador, who usually plays in Quito (sometimes play in Guayaquil at sea level). Bolivia on the other hand, almost never plays their home games below 2500 m (about 8.200 ft), as most of their bigger cities are above that hight. Colombia sometimes plays in Bogotá, but lately they've been doing it in Barranquilla (at sea level). Some high altitude big cities (more 100.000 inhabitants), a bit off-topic, but for perspective on what we are dealing with : http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Lista_de_las_grandes_ciudades_más_altas_del_mundo
Let's see, Netherlands was in the final in 2010, and Portugal's is more of a contender than the US is. Are you seriously trying to compare the USMNT to Portugal or the Netherlands? At this point both of those teams are good enough to win a World Cup in the near future which is more than can currently be said about us. Will the US win someday, yes, but it's going to require better competition to force us to make the type of tactical innovations that will best take advantage of the talent that we produce and be effective against the best teams in the world. Our players and coaches don't play enough as a team against the best sides in the world to make those adjustments on a regular basis. Competitions like the Euro aid countries with the resources to take advantage of it. Even taking into account the many sports that we have that syphon off talent, the population of the Netherlands is 5% that of ours. Portugal's is 3%, only 2 million larger than New York City. So even if you considered that only 5% of the total population of the US' able bodied male athletes took to the sport of soccer over other sports, our absolute capability should still be more or less on par. And our soccer players are already superior to much of the world on a purely athletic basis, our deficits are 70% skill and tactics. The argument that Lebron James and LaDanian Tomlinson would somehow boss world football are a bit overstated. We need touch and creativity, not more speed and power than we already have. The level of athleticism that we would have to exceed the rest of the world to overcome our tactical deficiencies is not possible to attain on the men's side. Because the best international side on the planet at the moment, is definitely not the most athletic. They're not incredibly fast or even very big. What they are is the most patient, the most tactical and the most skilled. That comes from exposure and culture. Spain's tika taka style came from adjustments made in studying other European football philosophies and how they were used against them and how they used it against others powerful nations. Part of that philosophy can be said to have been borrowed from the Dutch. Imo it's a bit similar to total football. How can we test a new philosophy against powerful nations if we never play them in a scenario that counts until the WC rolls around? And what we learn has to wait another cycle to be tested again.
Past results are a poor indicator of future results. Especially, the further you back the less relevant it is. I went back to Copa America in 1995. It is true the US loss to Bolivia, but it was the US that actually won the group. The US would go on to lose to Brazil 1-0 in the semifinals and then lose to a very talented Colombian team to finish in fourth place. In 2007 ( a more relevant competition) The US finished last in their group, but Ecuador and Bolivia also finished in the last place. Of course, there is a problem with this. it was FIVE years ago! This is entirely based on your biased assumption. Your entire argument rest on results over decades. The biggest differences is the US in the past decades have manage to advance to the quarterfinals in 2002 and the US won its group in 2010. No one is claiming that CONMEBOL is weak. This is just an excuse. I guess you needed an explanation on why Bolivia qualified for so few World Cups. I would also never mention Etcheverry in the in the same breath as Maradona. This is homerism at best here. Your opinion seems to be based entirely on results dating back to 1928. Consequently, it was not very persuasive.
Completely agree on that. But when there aren`t any actual or present results to use, all you have is them, as to get you an idea of diferences among those whom you want to establish anything among. Yes, you are probably right, they are old data but real, while yours are based solesly on personal approach, as you don`t have anything to back up what you are saying. By quoting that the US won its group in 2010, .... wow great. But in your WC group, nor in the whole WC your team didn`t even confront a Conmebol team, that can give you credit to what you say in reference to them. The big pain for most of us in Conmebol, not just Bolivia, is the same for everybody there when it gets to WC qualifiers : too much very tough competition and very few spots available. If Mexico decides to come, they`ll have to face the same issue, which will mean them, not to be present in some WC`s to come. Specifically for Bolivia, their pain besides the one of above, is that despite having a great level of play, their neighbours usually have had it better. You guys had "El Diablo" playing in your soil, but as he was from Bolivia you looked at him, as he was almost as average. Shame on you guys, who never really realized how lucky you were to have him there. If the guy would have been from Brazil, maybe then you would have taken in account how really talented that guy actually was. In my personal opinion, he has been the best player to ever play in MLS, even up to nowdays.
Didn't Seattle/Portland just break a record? MLS ratings are also on the rise. They are still small, but growing. I'd also argue the "many teams" aren't doing well in attendance is false. Just attended the sold out SJ-LA game last night. Stadium was packed.