4 more team to be added?

Just an update in scientific data on the Dolphins versus Humans debate. It seems that Dolphins are gunning for us. It's just a matter of time before we're through and won't be worrying about MLS,SEM, SSS, and ESPN.

http://www.theonion.com/onion3630/dolphins_evolve_thumbs.html

 

I recently saw what I think was a documentary about George C. Scott having taught a couple of dolphins to talk, as well. I think we'd better keep an eye on them. "Pha loves Pa" indeed.

 

Re: Oh, where to start, where to start?

There's no doubt that Baltimore supported the Colts bigtime, but the lesson here is just freaking give the owners every last cent you own because you'll end up losing your team and spending more to find a replacement.

This may be off the subject, buy my interest in the NFL pretty much has died since so many storied teams have moved. The cruelest joke was a Super Bowl between the STL Rams and Tenn. Oilers/Titans. Sickening. Yeah, I watched, but it was still sickening.

 

Amen to that.

 

I have to add my 2 cents here...

To the relegation discussion bashers - Reilly and Segroves come to mind - you guys have a lot of experience with these issues. Instead of demeaning put downs without any explanation, why not just recite the top few issues and move on?

To the Seattle bashers - two points.
First, the Sounders marketing stinks. I lived less than a mile from Memorial Stadium for three and a half years ('97-'00) and drove by it all the time. I never once saw a sign announcing a game & never saw a billboard in any of the nearby well-trafficked roads. Marketing works - the Seahawk Stadium A-league opener was a prime example - get the word out, and people will come. The WC friendly, and the speed that the Open Cup game sold out are 2 other interesting data points supporting the presence of soccer demand in Seattle. Hopefully, the MLS office could bring some business know how if they expanded there.
Second, all you youth-league enthusiasm bashers hold onto your seats - Seattle has a huge level of *adult* league participation. Over 400 teams - many co-ed - play across two major leagues and on every day of the week. Many of these people are young adults who like to watch soccer and have disposable income to do so.

As for USL/MLS relegation, it seems to be a discussion tightly coupled to the expansion issue, so I'm not sure why it's so quickly shot down by BS veterans.

The 2 most frequently cited criteria for expansion cited on this thread are money and soccer-specific stadia. The top A-league teams seem to have these figured out, at least to a small degree. A few of them even have stadia with decent capacity (10,000). Average attendance figures for the teams are hard to decipher - I'd be more interested in what the average attendances are for the 5 most well-attended A-league teams when their opponents are MLS teams, Open Cup opponents, big rivals, or other top A-league teams. So, maybe relegation wouldn't work - what about plain old acqusition? There's nothing that says the MLS couldn't cherry pick the top A-league teams, if those cities are most suitable for expansion. And, maybe the MLS needs to figure out how to operate effectively in smaller markets that have demonstrated interest and continuing operations rather than targeting larger markets with unproven support and large up-front investment requirements...

And, another argument for epxansion... maybe DCU could win a few more games... maybe...

 

Perhaps it was "The Day of the Dolphin" - an exciting espionage thriller. At least it seemed that way when I was 6. (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0069946)

 

You are the numbers guru. Different ways to spin these. First, Atlanta is still #1 in attendance after 2 years. Second, Atlanta's dropoff can be attributed to its move to Herndon stadium, which I would equate as similarly unpleasant as Chicago's move to Naperville, and yet they still remained in the upper half on attendance.

Lastly, a general point as to Atlanta attendance and the false stereotypes out there -- query why the Braves are deemed a large market team while cities of comparable or larger size, Philadelphia and Detroit most notably, are small market teams? The answer starts with an A- ands end in -ttendance.

 

Gee, I thought it started with "Deep" and ended with "Pockets."

Move Steinbrenner or any of the other "big market" owners to OKC and OKC would be a big market too.

 

No, it starts with an L- and ends in -ocal TV contracts.

 

Ok, ok. Before we get too far into analyzing who's in the stands at Turner Field, the original point was that a city needed to have a working plan in place to get a franchise. We all agree there's nothing more important than having the I/O and the SSS plan in place, right?

I laid out what I think Atlanta's plan to be. ASSUMING (a very big assumption I know) I'm right and the city has a potential Investor/Operator and an acceptable stadium plan, would MLS really deny a team based on perceptions of fan "support" for a city without those two in place? I think the answer starts with N- and ends in -o way, jose.

 

Re: Re: Oh, where to start, where to start?

And therein lies the rub, doesn't it?

Dude, you have got to fine-tune the joke-o-meter.

To get back on-topic: No area should be considered for an expansion franchise unless it has ownership with lots of money and a quality place to play. If someone in Oklahoma fits the bill, let 'em in, regardless of "big market" or not. If Atlanta doesn't fit the bill, don't let 'em in. If Philadelphia can't get it together, don't let 'em in.

 

Thanks for making my point, Washington supports the Skins, but couldn't keep either Senators. And their support of the Bullets/Wizards is lukewarm by modern NBA standards, and only because of Jordan. The point is, each franchise is different, it is not just the city. Cleveland loves the Browns, but the Cavs don't draw well...etc., etc.

People in Atlanta pull for the Thrashers, because they are like that little brother with hope of a good future. Not the Hawks, that twentysomething alcoholic brother who lives in the basement. Even though, they are showing signs of finally returning the successes of the 'Nique era...and yes, the Hawks were well supported then, even when mediocre because they had a star and an exciting style of play.

I guarantee you that Atlantans would support an MLS team, this is a soccer hotbed, the bars that showed the WC were packed with expats (there are alot here) young professionals, and college students alike. The lesson is this, put the stadium in the right place, get plenty of parking, and put a good product on the field, and they will come. Unfortunately for the rest of Atlanta's sports teams, they can now only do the latter of the 2.

Once again, it is ignorant of anyone outside of Atlanta to pretend they know what is going on here, it's demographics are unlike any other city in America. Sure, Chicago, DC, etc. have plenty of transplants, but they have several million natives as well, it is the other way around here. Natives are basically outnumbered, however, with the next generation, the kids that were born here, that will change.

 

Re: the great dolphins vs. humans debate, I thought I'd quote Stephen Hawings's take on the issue:

"It is not clear that intelligence has any long-term survival value."

That about sums it up. Dolphins don't post on internet message boards either, except that one from the Yahoo! commercial.

 

Yes, that was obvious. Silly me.

That was twenty years ago. Minneapolis lost the Lakers, too, they must suck as a sports town.

I'll put the league average in there, so you can see where they were in relation to that:

1992-93 | 13,641 (16,060)
1993-94 | 15,116 (16,246)
1994-95 | 17,100 (16,727)*
1995-96 | 16,789 (17,252)
1996-97 | 17,089 (17,077)*
1997-98 | 19,542 (17,117)*
1998-99 | 16,099 (16,738)
1999-00 | 15,039 (16,870)
2000-01 | 15,577 (16,784)
2001-02 | 20,477 (16,966)*

The Wizards were above the league average three of the last seven seasons before Jordan. That's not great, but considering they haven't won a playoff series since the Reagan Administration (there's hyperbole to make a point), it's pretty good.

Correct. I agree that there's a lot more to be said for having a good product marketed well than there is for a city's reputation as a "sports mecca".

Dominique Wilkins played for the Atlanta Hawks from 1982 to 1993. Here are the Hawks' average attendances in those years (league average in parentheses):

1982-83 | 7,138 (10,220)
1983-84 | 7,139 (10,620)
1984-85 | 7,312 (11,141)
1985-86 | 9,212 (11,893)
1986-87 | 13,406 (12,795)
1987-88 | 14,221 (13,419)
1988-89 | 15,714 (15,088)
1989-90 | 13,993 (15,690)
1990-91 | 12,907 (15,245)
1991-92 | 12,485 (15,689)
1992-93 | 11,981 (16,060)

From 86-89, they were well-supported relative to the league average. Before and after that, they were a little below. 1985-86 was the first year they won 50 games (they did it for four straight years) and became really good. When they weren't quite so good anymore, the crowds dropped off.

If they have good people in charge, I'd like their chances. No matter how many expats, yuppies and students there are.

They can save a lot on staffing then, since they obviously won't need ticket sales people. The people will just show up on their own. That's good to know.

 

THANK YOU! I'm sick of this "they put down turf" crap. It's nice to know there are a few others out there who have a clue about FieldTurf, compared to the other (IMO inferior) products out there.

-Kevin

 

https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=159 Use it.

 

$0.02:

The conventional wisdom about a city and its readiness, willingness and ableness to support a sports franchise in a particular sport or in all sports has so often been proved wrong that arguing over a city's chances before the fact is futile.

In our own league the conventional wisdom had it that Los Angeles did not support soccer (historically true), Columbus was too small to be major league and that Miami was a good bet due to its Latino population. Our crystal balls failed us on all three counts and they're just as likely to be wrong about any number of other candidates we are thinking about today.

In terms of MLS there is one certainty - stadium availability is a vital issue in determining where new franchises are located. Virtually all other factors are overblown in their importance by fans and media. Having outside investors at the ready, having a sporting public that is receptive to soccer, having a TV watching public that is likely to provide support to the league's overall "footprint", all these factors can be overcome if they are absent. If there is a stadium in place that works and a staff of employees with the determination to fill that stadium, just about any city can work.

 

Stadiums are issue number one. But they don't work in a vacuum. The second best stadium situation in league history never saw a crowd larger than 15,000 after it's first match. The right stadium in the wrong place with no marketing can be the worst "solution" of all.

 

I will continue my case for Atlanta with more speculation. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has been supportive of soccer for the most part. Wendy Parker writes about international soccer, there are other beat writers, and Mark Bradley, a columnist you'd think would be a basher, has written favorable but realistic columns. One of the local radio stations, 96Rock, has a morning disc jockey who "commentates" at the Silverbacks games, and has even gotten sports radio talk show guys out to games. So, IMO, there's a favorable press reception for the sport.
On the business side, Mike Balson, formerly of the Atlanta Chiefs, became a millionaire parlaying his soccer experience into youth development, Graham Tutt also is active here, and many former Chiefs I have heard have some business relations with current Silverbacks owners. I don't know who they'd hire to sell tickets, but I reckon they'd have some background in operations.
Not sure what other factors should be looked at to evaluate a city's "marketing" situation, and management-wise, predicting who will be good and who won't be seems pretty speculative. (I repeat my disclaimer that I have no idea if all these parts are indeed working together, I just think they could and it's a better basis for discussion than how many locals attend Thrashers games.)

 

Answer me this, if Atlanta wouldn't support soccer, how do you explain the Atlanta fans that show up to support the city every single time it is mentioned for possible expansion team?? I see tons of people on this board that are Atlanta citizens or natives. Soccer is popular in and around Atlanta, with adults and kids, no two ways about it. The support it receives on this board is a definite sign of that...Obviously, I am not saying it is a "Field of Dreams" type thing, thanks for the unecessary sarcasm though, it really puts your credibility in perspective.

 

It appears that people who make fun of those asking about promotion/relegation here are the one's to say. I remember now why I stopped following the MLS threads and forums here.

 

No, I'm making them up, Eric. Haven't been here long, have you? Do you keep track of this stuff, or do I?

(a) I never said Atlanta wouldn't support soccer---I'm saying you can't prove that by the things you're trying to say will prove that. The number of expats, yuppies, and students in a bar during the World Cup is not a leading economic indicator for how Atlanta would do. Neither is, necessarily, how they support the A-League team. If an Atlanta team had the right stadium situation and the right ownership/management, I reckon they'd have as good a chance as any to do okay. But you keep bringing up stuff that has no relevance, getting facts wrong, and then saying things like "The lesson is this, put the stadium in the right place, get plenty of parking, and put a good product on the field, and they will come," when there's so much more to a successful franchise than that, and that's what I'm calling you on.

(b) Where, exactly, are these people "showing up every time"? Here? How much does it take to support an idea on here?

(c) And no matter where these people are "showing up", there's "showing up" and then there's "ponying up" like the people of Columbus did, when they sold 11,500 season ticket deposits---actual money---for a team and a league that didn't exist. When Atlantans do that, then you'll have something.

Dude, if you want to match credibility, we can go anytime you want.

 

You call 3 million plus a year for the last 11 years nothing special? Maybe in your world. Even if the Braves didn't make the playoffs, but played their hearts out game after game, people would still show. No, I would not agree.


If Baltimore supported the Bullets, then why do they now play in DC?

One more time; attendance at the aforementioned sports cannot be used as a meter to gauge MLS attendance. They sell out KC Chiefs games, don't they? But yet they don't get squat for the Wizards. Baltimore supports the Orioles and Ravens, and the Colts before them, but didn't do crap for the Bays or the Comets (soccer teams). Your argument has no merit.

One point on good teams/good attendance. When the fans know that the ownership is trying, they'll support the teams even if they suck. Just look at the Cubs. For many years, Atlanta had teams whose front offices seemed to have no clue about anything. Thus, the teams sucked. The Falcons now have a new owner. Even if they go 6-10 this year, people will still come to the games, because they know Arthur Blank is going to do his best to put a winner on the field, even if it takes a while. The Smiths talked a good story, bet either had no clue, or just wanted a status symbol to flaunt. If it's evident the owners either don't care, or are in over their heads, people see that, and vote with their feet.

Atlanta is is a unique case, bacause we've only had pro sports for about 35 years, and we still have no tradition. You keep bringing up the Washington Redskins. Pray tell, how long have they been there? You'd be surprised how many Atlanta natives (both of them ) are "still" Redskin fans from before the mid-60s! Ditto for the Reds.

You cannot judge potential MLS attendance based soley on the attendance of other sporting events. There is no correlation.