I had previously been in favor of spreading out over the country so we could hit as many markets as possible. I still think that's the in the long term interest of the league. However, I now believe that adding teams that have natural rivals is the best way to go. For example, I think it would be better to bring in Seattle, Portland and Vancouver as a unit then to expand to other larger cities. New York #2 seems like a great idea now. Montreal is a given with Toronto. Cities like Phoenix, Miami and Minnesota were always lower on the totem pole for me. Now they're even lower. PS: I know none of this matters because of the ownership and stadium issues. Whoever ponies up will get the teams. I'm just sort of talking out loud about the whole thing.
New York #2 would make absolutely no sense until the Red Bulls start drawing in more fans. The Galaxy were selling out most games when the Chivas move was made. New York has trouble drawing 10,000 (I don't blame anybody for the Nor'easter game), but maybe it'll change with The Bruce in charge. Montreal might not be a bad idea, but I was about to knock the S%#@ outta Glenn Davis yesterday for blabbering about how it was professional soccer's return to Canada. The Montreal Impact won the USL First Division title a couple of years ago. Vancouver and Toronto have/had USL teams. Between that an "FC Toronto," he sounded like an idiot yesterday. It really shocked me because he's usually one of the best guys not on ESPN. We all make mistakes, but leaving the "top-level" out of "top-level professional soccer" is like Dwight Schrute's "Assistant (to the) Regional Manager" routine.
Not saying this is definately the reason, but is he paid by MLS or Fox? I'm guessing Fox, but if it were MLS you would guess they wouldn't want anyone talking about USL.
The Superclasico was the best MLS match I've seen this year as a whole, atmosphere, production, and gameplay. I think more rivalries/derbies in the league would promte that atmosphere. The only other derby I could think of is Houston and Dallas, is that even considered a derby?
Definately in favor of 1) Philadelphia 2) NY #2 & maybe even Chicago #2 (both eventually in new stadia) 3) Seattle/Vancouver/Portland all in 4) Cleveland 5) San Jose & eventually Sacramento 6) San Antonio (yes, I know it's a MLS sore spot) 7) Montreal partly/mostly for this reason. Completely agree.
Derbies are good locally and look good on television nationally. We need more of those. An MLS team in every major market increases the league's national presence. We need more of that.
In fact Vancouver even won it last year. Eh, not as bad as FSC calling the US Open Cup the MLS Open Cup.
Based on this criteria, Philly should shoot to the top of the list. Everyone already hates the city and its sports teams. And the fans there hate everyone else.
If rival cities is what you are going for then MLS needs to put a team in St Louis as soon as possible. While I dont know that it would work there, KC and STL don't get along at all. They would be heated contests even if they were played in front of only 7,000 fans.
St. Louis and Chicago have a thing also. So they might be a good fit using this framework. I think the whole point though is that you wouldn't see crowds of 7000 in rivalry games like this. If KC and St. Louis hate each other, I'd think it would be the most well attended game of the year for KC. And we all hope that if St. Louis gets a team that they wont have crowds that small anyway.
Let NYC and Chicago sell out all their games before we can assume that they can afford a second one in their stadiums. Places like Cleveland, San Jose. and Philly, definately. San Antonio if they can handle another sports team there, and right now, they're not showing they can. I think Portland, Seattle, Vancouver, and Montreal will especially work for MLS if their USL teams convert into MLS. I can't see them being able to go through the growing pains of an expansion team. It would also be especially difficult to market there when their USL teams have at least some kind of history behind them compared to an expansion.
Come on, Phoenix should be a given, too. Don't you think they're close enough to LA to have a rivalry with either of those two? And being that they're in the southwest, where there is a lot of latino influence, they should be a must. Just look at the turnout for the USA-Mexico game, there are a lot of soccer fans there. To overlook Phoenix for expansion would not be wise. (I'm not even from there and I'm saying this.)
That's exactly what I'm saying. I used to feel the same way. I was looking at big markets with Latin American representation and thinking those were the best spots. I think that my list of priorities has switched though (I know...my priorities don't mean anything). I don't see a natural rival for Phoenix. LA and Chivas have each other and are pretty damn far away. Same goes for RSL and Colorado. Same for the Texas teams. I could see a nice little thing if Las Vegas came in at the same time (which has loads of potential because of the rapid growth of the city and lack of competition from other major leagues). It could be the Battle of the Desert or something.
Going to college in Cleveland and living 45 mins from Columbus I would be all for putting a team in Cleveland to make it into a nice derby/rivalry. Althought I dont know which team I would support but I would be able to see more games which would be awesome. I dont know if Cleveland would be able to draw enough fans to make it a real option for expansion. Even though there isnt bad feelings between the two cities it could work. I dont think it will happen though.
Although setting up rivalries is great, the more teams you put across the country, the more it becomes almost automatic. The only two locations I can think of where you don't create a rivalry are Atlanta and Seattle. And that's only a temporary thing. All clubs in those regions from then on become automatic rivals. All these cities are rivalry no brainers: (1) Philadelphia (2) Cleveland (3) San Diego (4) San Jose (5) St. Louis (6) San Antonio So all you really got to do is add more teams.
I don't think San Jose has a natural rilvary with anyone. If San Jose came in with San Francisco, Oakland or Sacramento....then it would have a natural rival. I know something kind of developed with the Earthquakes and Galaxy but that was really due to their being nothing else really close by. Now Galaxy has Chivas. I also think Cleveland isn't the greatest idea. There are a bunch of cities in the midwest that are pretty stagnant in terms of population growth and are saturated with sports teams. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Minnesota, etc.... I'm not against these cities getting teams per se, I just think it's smarter to put teams in other areas first. There are cities all around the country that have enormously fast growth rates and zero or one major sports teams to compete with. Orlando, Las Vegas, Sacramento, Portland, Vancouver, etc..... I think MLS's best moves is to get into these cities now and watch them all turn into top 25-top 30 markets in 15 years.
I understand this. But it's kind of like Maryland and Duke in college basketball. Not natural rivals at all. They just happen to be in the same conference and were both fighting for the top spot against each other. A pretty nasty rivalry developed because so much was at stake. These kinds of things can still happen. But when you're talking about a Derby, it really implies that the teams are in the same city or pretty damn close. I think bringing in Sacramento and San Jose would be pretty cool.
There's nothing that says you can't have more than one rival. In fact that would be the best. Look at Seattle--Portland--Vancouver. And you're obviously new to MLS. San Jose vs LA was the first great rivalry.