Atlanta plays 3 home games back to back in August. Not sure about the other teams but there could be more besides Atlanta. MLS doesn't seem to have a problem so scheduling some teams to play their first 3 games away and then later when weather gets better having them play 3 home games back to back shouldn't be a problem either. In the long run those teams that are still scheduled in the winter in the beginning of the season could actually benefit from way better attendance than what they normally have in bad weather.
The thing is, thus far, MLS has barely (if at all) tried to consider climate when generating the schedule. Largely, I assume, it's simply been impossible to do so. There's always some club with a stadium project underway that necessitates a freakishly adjusted schedule (think Minnesota and Portland last year, or DC in 2018). Then there are teams in stadium situations that limit availability at certain times of the year. We have that in Columbus, where we can't play home games during the Ohio State Fair in July. Now, fast forward a couple/three years, and who knows? Austin will be online. We'll have our downtown stadium with no scheduling conflicts. FCC will be out of Nippert. Nashville? I mean, for now, they'll be sharing with two football teams, but if they do get that stadium built..? Sacramento, certainly. Even St. Louis; not a warm climate, necessarily, but their own stadium with absolute control over scheduling. So, yeah, at some point, it at least become possible for MLS to try and tilt things slightly to play fewer early season games in colder weather climates. Because there's a world of difference between a fully front-loaded for southern clubs schedule and what we sometimes have now, where some more northern clubs play an inexplicably front-loaded home schedule. Chicago and Columbus last year, for example. Again for us in 2020, 6 of the first 9 games at home, including a Wednesday match. That's just a shitty schedule. I'm not asking for that to switch to, say, 3 home and 6 away, but 4 and 5 would be a real improvement and that really, really should be possible once more clubs come online with their own stadiums in a few years.
Would MLS be more open to the return of the CCL group stage since the season would be starting sooner?
It has, at least a little bit. Toronto has only hosted one season opener in its history. New England hasn't since 2008, when it was on March 29.
I sense that this argument is being influenced by where people live It will become a safety issue eventually.
This I would be more open to. But the idea some people pitch is every cold weather team starts on the road for 2 (or more) games every season. Which, no. Right, but to make up for those teams (in the scenario that cold weather teams always start on the road) starting the season by likely looking up at the warm-weather teams due to home field advantage, you'd balance it out with them getting home field advantage for the final games.
Re: TFC, last year is a good example of how complex this can be. No, they didn't host their opener (instead, playing it in balmy Philadelphia). They did play week two at home (against NE), part of a three game home stand. Then away, but then two more home games right afterwards. So no home opener, but 5 of their first 7 games at home, in March and April. Plus, they were in CCL, which is a totally different challenge, not only requiring them to play at home on Feb. 26, but as I recall they needed to have open date placeholders on their schedule for the early part of the MLS season just in case they advanced. Maybe this could get better with more teams, especially warm weather clubs, having their own stadiums. Sure, there's always going to be a need to MLS fans in quite a few cities to bundle up for a few weeks early each year. But front loaded home schedules for those clubs is a real gamble. By comparison, look at Montreal's schedule this year: - Two home games indoors (CONCACAF and MLS opener) in Feb and early March. - On the road for the next 4 weeks - 2nd MLS home match, April 18, at Saputo (then away the next week). While I wonder why they can't rent Olympic Stadium for at least another home match (except, you know, $$$), that's 2 of their first 7 MLS matches at home. So clearly adjustments can be made. The Crew played at Saputo mid-April last year and the "grass" was in sad shape.
I really don't know, because I'm not sure what would cause fixture congestion, but I'm feeling the withdrawal. I love soccer, but I love it most when it's American!! So, early Feb. was my vote. But I have no clue about he weather outside Southern CA these days.
I live in the DC area and I'm the exact opposite (I grew up in Rochester, NY, and still love snow and cooler weather). I'd rather bundle up and sit in a 20 degree game than suffer almost any game in July/August in DC with the high heat, and more significantly the high humidity that makes even 80 degrees feel pretty miserable to me. In any case, it's very rare that there is any snow of significance around the 1st of March in the DC area, so I don't think starting the schedule then is a concern here with regard to snow. A bit of cold, maybe for many people, will be an issue, but the early games this year are during daylight hours which I assume is to mitigate that.
I don't have a problem with "warm weather" teams (this would include Montreal and Vancouver, since they can play indoors) having the first two games at home. As a fan of a cold weather team, I could give a rat's ass about playing "first kick" at home--I didn't even realize some people think it's a thing. The problem is unless you have half the league as "warm weather" it won't work. We're close, but you'll still have places like DC or Dallas or Portland or Seattle where it might not be Minnesota/Toronto cold, it still can be pretty iffy. There are 9 each in the "cold" and "warm" categories and 8 others in between (those above. plus KC, NSH,CIN,PHI) The Revs home opener a few years ago was in late March, and it was 40 degrees and rainy. OK, it sucked, but if we played at Orlando or LA the weeks before, so be it. In general, the balance between home and away should never be more than 2 games, i.e. never more than 2 home games than away games or vice versa at any point in the season. The trick to scheduling as a whole is to always have every single team play every single weekend (as long as there is an even number of teams). There is no excuse whatsoever to have 2 teams off, only to have another midweek game later on. Each team playing 2-3 midweek games a year is OK, but those should be minimized in favor of weekend dates.
Fans, maybe not, but I believe owners (and more accurately, sponsors) think it is. From a fan POV my only issue is starting in a hole most seasons. Because home field advantage does exist, so the same teams playing the same two games on the road every season (in the scenario I'm discussing) means the same teams are likely going to be looking up at the standings to the other teams every year. Yes, that balances out eventually, but like it or not that kind of result does set a tone for fans for the season. (Hell, there are plenty of fans, both of the Rapids and MLs ins general) who think the Rapids were a horrible team last year. They were, for a third of the season, but for the other 2/3rds they were a top 3 team. But because they started out with a historically bad run the tone of the 2019 season is set in a lot of people's minds.)
I might be biased. I'm from Houston and mostly grew up in Dubai. The most fun pickup game I've ever played was in 106-degree weather in DC in the summer of 2012, on a day that tied the city's all-time record high. That said, when I'm referring to MLS not having enough warm-weather cities, I'm going by a European soccer standard, not mine. And when I refer to Dallas winters as being sometimes brutal, I'm talking about continental winter storms with freezing rain. It's not like that all the time, but those storms are frequent enough that I wouldn't want to schedule winter games in Dallas.
Do those owners and sponsors who are clamoring for "First Kick" mind that if it's horrible weather you'll only get a 4-figure crowd of actual attendees? Guaranteed that the local Yute team and other more "casual" fans will give that game a pass until better weather comes along. As for the early season hole, sure, if you end up playing 5 out of your first 7 away, you could be in a hole by the time the weather gets warm, but if you have 2 away games, then 2 home, it should even out. Or even 2 away, a home game, then away and home, home, etc. But if you never have more than 2 games difference in either direction, it should be OK overall. Now that NYC are playing some games in the Mets' stadium, they won't have 4-5 game homestands and road trips.
For Montreal which I know better it's really about "picking your poison" financially Play at Stade Saputo in the cold and no one shows up Play at Olympic Stadium but bleed money on that game (I heard that around half the stadium needed to be filled to break even - doable during CCL, a tough ask for a regular MLS game) Although they might lose less money by playing in the cold then renting the Olympic Stadium, not many will show for the Impact under these conditions* *They will for NHL, CFL and most likely CCL, not MLS TFC play in the cold because they have strong enough base of hardcore fans to no longer need to rent the Rogers Centre like they use to.
Just shorten the season...* But I'd still rather have the early start than MLS Cup in December. *I in no way have considered the financial or logistical challenges of doing this.
Montreal averages less than 20K (17K through the midpoint of 2019) for CFL in good summer weather....do you honestly believe fans would show up in the dead of winter? Also TFC averages a higher attendance than the Argos. I agree that Saputo would like to play as few or no games at The Big O if possible. The only way he would want to play in that Stadium is if he's breaking even at worst on the game. It's not just MLS being open to a return to the group stage, it would also involve Liga MX, and the rest of Concacaf being open to it as well. A big reason they did away with the group stage was due to all of the travel, and teams sending youth/reserve based teams (some complete with coaches as well) for away games during the group stage. Our region is larger than Europe, and travel is much more extensive, and difficult.
Europe has a lot of variability for climate across the continent. I spent a few years living in Italy, north of Milan, and the weather there and several other cities with Serie A teams (not to mention Serie B and the lower leagues) with average winter temps close to DC. Milan (AC, Inter), Turin (Juventus, Torino), Bergamo (Atalanta), Verona (Hellas), and Udine (Udinese) have 7 of 18 teams in the league this year with average lows in February at or around freezing. Serie A takes a short break for Christmas, but they play in December and January, which have similar temps, give or take a few degrees. Snowfall, if I recall correctly, is similar to DC, which means only a couple of inches per winter and rain is more likely than snow. Games are typically at night. Point being, there are leagues in Europe that play in winter months with the type of weather that is claimed to be too cold for MLS to play in. North of DC, and in other parts of the country, you can get significant amounts of snow, but by the beginning of March you're looking at a reduced chance of heavy snow events.
I hear y'all from up North, well Ohio and North of that and as someone with a slight acumen for business gets the sponsors and owners perspective that we talk about here, however, the beautiful game has always been about the players down on the field and their people in the stands backing them. Avoiding adverse conditions is logical for the players outlook but who can really know what any day's weather might be like, thus why worry. I would like to think that a 2 game "away" structure for all MLS teams North of Ohio to play out on the West Coast, or indoors or of course in Region III can be sorted out. Certainly if CCL participation demands MLS teams from up North and the Mountain States play in mid February. Finding a way to start in a congruent form for league play appears logical from the players perspective of being fully match fit for the regional competition if the player and his owners make regional titles a priority. Which of course beating Mexican clubs NEVER gets old! Beating those teams often increases sponsors interest, certainly in cross over demographics that can open up ancillary revenue streams. Also, has anyone ever played the sport at a high level in extreme heat or cold? I have. Played in August in the direct Sun here in Texas. It was a typical August day in Texas. Gulf Coast Texas so add in just a tad of humidity and the on the field temp was easily 100 if not 105+. As bad as stout cold will sting a man's flesh, it still does not hurt like your boots are on fire after 10 minutes of running around in the 100 degree heat and direct Sun. I should know as I also have played in a Winter front storm where it was easily 15 to 20 degrees down on the field. Add in that wind chill and the on the field temp was easily a feels like 0 to 5. Any player will take running around for 90 minutes in the cold over the heat. The heat just saps the player and the beautiful game down on the field gets sluggish. Then there is the fan's perspective, which as MLS die hards go like me and my buddies, we have been to many games where us in Houston gets that coveted 3:00PM kickoff slot here and there and it is fine in the Spring but past Memorial Day weekend all through September we just go and take the heat, just deal with it. Even into October, it is not till that first front makes it all the way to the Gulf Coast that temps get out of the 90's. The final game last year it was Houston hosting LAG. 99 in the shade! 105+ in the stands out under the direct Sun we had women and kids having to move to the concourse or risk passing out. Even I was like, "Shit this is hot today!" But it was LAG and Zlatan's bragging ass out at our home ground so our people went regardless. So in March after the 2 "away" game roll, put on a coat and drink some Jamo and just go out to your home ground with some friends and endure the chill!
Really? That ship sailed when the game became professional and not a bunch of amateurs running around the pitch.
Its called the people's game. Or at least it is on a global theme. For its accessibility to the masses. Simplicity in run of play and the ticket to see said professional you speak of did not cost an arm and a leg. A core trait that our MLS has traditionally clung to and this thinking has worked. Our league has grown! Now it is time to grow some more.
Is the domestic league the most popular in any given country? Almost universally no. You pine for a past that doesn't exist anymore.
And yet our Commish speaks often of the fact that the professional game in our nation is on catching up with the world. That he admits our culture has a 100 year gap to close. So MLS had training wheels in the beginning. Then those needed to come off. Now in Season 25, as MLS is booming, starting the season earlier than in the past seems logical as the pro game advances in our soccer culture.