If Chivas and Rochester are 2004, would they do Cleveland, OKC, Seattle, Houston, Philly, whoever in 2005? Or, for that matter, would they possibly do 4 teams in 2005 (if nobody in 2004)?
There's precious little chance. Expanding the player pool by 20 percent (assuming 2 teams and 25 man rosters) is going to be enough of a hit for one year. You'd see a DRASTIC drop in the level of play if there were more than two teams. The wild card in all this is if Seattle and Rochester were to be "promoted" to MLS. You would have to assume they would keep at least a few of their players and not place as much of a demand on the player pool. Sachin
I think those chances are slim. I think the best thing to do would be to expand to 12 teams in 2005, going with Goats and Rhinos (who will by then be in their SSS). In the meanwhile they should let Cleveland, OKC and whoever else grow. Meaning that if they're willing to build a SSS, then they should be allowed to join the league.
------------------------------------------------- "The wild card in all this is if Seattle and Rochester were to be "promoted" to MLS" ------------------------------------------------- Is there a thread already that discusses "promoting" vs. "adding"? I think this is a major issue with MLS expansion. The more teams that are organically worked into the Major League, the better. It also would offer more opportunity for the *possibility* of things like relagation 15 years from now. IF the MLS is still around (or some variant) IF soccer continues to make its way into TV IF our talent pool doesn't get sucked into Europe The choices we make now will affect the direction of professional soccer for decades to come. We need to not go the route of the NHL: Overexpansion, lame team names, cities with no possibility of local development Although I used to worry about teams like Rochester getting added, now I'm starting to imagine them being the Green Bay of the future (very small town, very big fanbase and history)
I wouldn't really compare Green Bay to Rochester, Green Bay at the max has 100,000 pop. Rochester is at least 300,000
boy, that name has some history... Did you know that the current (NBA) Sacramento Kings were originally the Rochester Royals?
Ok, so, are you saying Rochester ISN'T a small city? That would make Rochester something like the 10th largest city in California. The point being, that Green Bay is not a large city, but it has a great tradition of football. It would be wonderful if Rochester turned into something similar. (odd sidenote - Rochester has one of the most feared Fencing Academies in the U.S.)
as was noted in another thread, There are 1.1M people in the Rochester market, plus they can draw fans from Buffalo to the west (another 1.1M) and Syracuse to the east (0.8M) It's not a huge market, but it's not tiny, either - and they've proven that they will support a team.
"as was noted in another thread, There are 1.1M people in the Rochester market, plus they can draw fans from Buffalo to the west (another 1.1M) and Syracuse to the east (0.8M)" Well yeah, All of Wisconsin loves the Packers, and that's what I'm saying. Smaller cities (as opposed to "markets") can support great teams.