Other Teams and MLS....stuff [R]

This is beIN's spanish channel
Notice how, when you are on the channel, that it has an n-yay (too lazy to find the actual text for it, you know what I mean) next to the name...?

I was on "vacation" in Park City and was in disbelief when I found beIN on my channel guide... then I watched Argentina v Uruguay. Based on my twitter following of the game, I probably saved myself a lot of heartache.

 

Looks like no Beckerman in the starting 11 tonight. Hoping he doesn't play so we can have a fully rested Beckerman/Rimando for tomorrow.

 

Say goodbye to Beckerman on the national team, it was good while it lasted. He is very unlikely to get much of a look should the U.S. get to the next round of qualifying.

 

To be fair I don't think many expected him to be someone to last given his age. He may or may not be done, but with such a loaded midfield compared to other spots on the field, he never really had a huge shot to begin with.

 

Perhaps. For now Kyle has had some good games and training. Salute to our USMNT guys!

 

I'm not sold on Danny Williams being the right guy next to Bradley.
Anybody who watched last nights game knows that Bradley is a must in center mid (hey, it's not because his dad is the coach...) but the partnership needs to be worked on.

Edu isn't consistent and Jones reminds me of Mastroeni on bad days - meaning he is a stupid tackle away from making us play a man down.

KB will get called into camps from here on out, I'd put money on it. Not sure he'll see the pitch much, but the guys in front of him haven't made him an easy cut by any means.

 

I hope Beckerman gets called back in and sees some minutes, but I think his lack of speed as exposed by Jamaica will likely cost him in the future.

 

More than that it's the dangerous free kicks given (though that was a concession to speed).

 

I apologise if this has been covered. I read an interesting article on a new MLS franchise for New York in Queens and I was interested in everyone's thoughts...personally, I would've like to see another small market team get it (I'm partial to the Railhawks due being from NC). Does MLS need another big market team?
http://www.goal.com/en-us/news/1110...flushing-queens-for-new-stadium-hopes-to-have

 

I'm not a fan of it. To me, it seems like having two teams in big markets always leads to one team being dominant and the other struggling. I'm thinking of Yankees vs. Mets, Lakers vs. Clippers, Galaxy vs. Chivas. Is there any example of two major sports teams being in the same market and both being successful? I don't really follow other sports very closely at all, so there could be an example where it has worked (Raiders and 49ers maybe??). Still, it seems like in general you end up with one team that everyone loves an another one that is the ugly stepchild.

Meanwhile, small-market teams in MLS have done quite well (RSL, KC and Columbus for example) as long as they get a stadium, seems like.

 

Chivas isn't NY2, but it didn't work in a similar but arguably more apathetic market.

I'm with you - I'd like to see the old soccer roots rewarded in Rochester, Carolina, Atlanta etc. As we've seen with Seattle and others - bringing an existing tradition in is easier than manufacturing one with wanna-be franchise names and marketing.

Beyond that I deeply want to see MLS - for the sake of the sport - move away from the Machiavellian dictatorship we have from the league. Yes, the Don has grown the league and it's worked to this point, but at some point it needs to become more like the NFL with more revenue sharing, a hard cap, and full opportunity. The strange stuff MLS is doing in NY (and in LA or with the rules in the past) smacks of more dictatorial management of the league, not less, so it disturbs me.

 

The Rangers and Islanders in the NHL have been more or less successful over the years (although the Islanders seem to have hit the skids). Europe is full of examples from soccer where two, three or more teams play out of the same city.

 

Milan, Italy
- though, the state of Italian soccer is less than ideal at the moment (especially for my AC Milan boys)
Manchester, England
London, England (like 6 EPL clubs)
etc

I'm very against New York getting a second team. The whole idea seems so stupid it screams NASL moronic approach to me. The Red Bulls "sellout" games while you can still see the redbull logo. This is Chivas and LAG all over again should it go through.

Put a franchise in ST Louis, Carolina, Orlando, etc. For the love of god, don't put another in New York.

 

I am too. I could see it if NYRB was selling out but they're not. They didn't even get a very good bump when they opened their SSS. I've heard soccer fans in NY say that a team on Long Island would draw fans that don't want to go all the way to Jersey...I say bullshit. I've taken trains/subway from Queens to Jersey in less than an hour for less than $10.

You shouldn't do NY2 for the same reason you don't expand a football stadium: Demand does not greatly exceed supply. Until the demand for soccer in NYC/Jersey greatly exceeds the supply, this NY2 team is going to be a financial disaster. Best case, NY2 is successful and cannibalizes NYRB, but if you're MLS, this isn't an attractive solution either.

 

Agreed. If MLS wanted a team in NY so badly, why didn't they help NYRB get a stadium in Queens and reward the longtime MetroStars fans? They talk about steady growth, but they seem to be forcing this one a little too hard. With so many areas that want in, why try and force a team on an area that is not supporting the team they have? I understand the whole TV market argument and everything, but I just don't see this being a good solution. I don't think NYRB collapses, but NY2 definitely won't help them at all.

 

For whatever reason, the Hudson River is a major barrier to many New Yorkers. They don't like going to Jersey, it's as simple as that. If I had to guess, NY2 will cannibalize NYRB for this reason alone.

Also, good call everyone on pointing out that there are multiple successful soccer teams in the same cities in Europe. Somehow that didn't cross my mind. Do you think that they are able to do that because of a lack of other major sports competing for spectators? I still hold by my belief that it's a rarity for two teams in the same sport in the same city to be successful here in the U.S.

 

Rugby, cricket and watching teeth rot are pretty big sports.

 

If you are talking cities with multiple soccer teams in top league you have to include Buenos Aires, Rio and Sao Paulo. Often have 3, 4 or 5 teams in top flight.
But two Ny/Nj teams is a bad idea because of the relative position of soccer in the US sports pantheon.

 

The US is also so drastically different, in terms of size, to pretty much every Euro nation/league that comparing them to the US is a joke. There are roughly 3 times as many people in the city of London as there are in the entire state of Utah. Utah is nearly twice as big as England...

 

You need to also remember that, at least in Latin America, clubs are the places you go to for all the sports you take for granted here as part of city rec leagues. It's at your club that you learn how to swim as a kid, that you hit your first tennis ball, that you kick your first soccer ball in a game, etc. Clubs are the social life of individuals. They also sponsor other professional sports. So you can have multiple clubs in a city but people belong to that club for much more than soccer. People don't just pick a team there and say, "I think I will be a fan of such-and-such team" for x reason. No, you are a fan of your team because it's your club and it's been your family's club for generations. Loyalty there runs generations deep, you switch allegiances and it's like divorcing your family. We don't have that in the US so it's hard to equate the two situations.

 

Vegas
don't give me the "it's too hot" or "they don't have fans" excuses/logic
a road trip to vegas...

 

I also don't understand the gambling excuse. Atlantic City has gambling, and yet New Jersey still gets teams.