Anything other than Chivas USA. That's just asking to get bitten in the ass. Sure Real Salt Lake was a ridiculous name at first but it's not like it appeals only to the Spanish-American population of Utah. Chivas limits itself as a brand immediately. Their road attemdance is nice but it's at home where it matters.
The frozen burrito (fried or non-fried) is an American invention. The burrito is a northern Mexican thing. Your boogie Mexican friends must be very "special" or very fresa chilangos to have never eaten a burrito. I am willing to take you friends to any good taqueria en Reynosa, Mexico to get a good batch of burritos. Any norteño mexicano will have eaten at least one "burrito" in his/her lifetime. If you read Spanish, El Burrito (wiki)
I don't know which Mexicanos you have been talking to, but the burrito IS an authentic northern Mexican food. For those who can read in Spanish, wiki is your friend...The Burrito. There are some versions of the burrito that have been Americanized just like pizza. Also, Mexican cuisine has evolved in the Southwest US reflecting both Mexican cuisine and American cuisine.
While I agree with a lot of points in this thread I kinda disagree with the whole naming it Chivas USA was a mistake. A study was made in LA of which sports team was the most popular and Chivas came in second after the lakers. LA is also the second city with the most Chiva fans anywhere after Mexico City, not even Guadalajara has more than Chicago which came in third place. The numbers are there but the mistake was to bring in subpar players and not replace them with quality ones. Its like one of you said, you cant name it Chivas and not field a team with mostly Mexicans players. What Chivas needs to do is decide which rode are they going to go: Either go in the Chivas way and field a team with mostly Mexican players or Mexican American players or Rebrand the team so everybody can root for the team, but i dont think its going to work if you dont choose one or the other. Mexicans love to root for a team that represents them and Chivas USA can do that if they add more Mexican players, but if they dont, then Mexicans wont go, and I see it hard for Americans to support a team that wants to represent Mexican pride. Maybe Im wrong and Hunter can do the job and have both Mexican and Americans rooting for the same team, but as a Mexican and a Chiva fan i think its very important to add more Mexicans to the team if they want to bring in more Chiva fans.
I'm sure that's all true, but can you bring in better Mexican and Mexican - American players under the salary cap? Why would Mexican players of decent ability play for less money at Chivas USA than they might make in the MFL? I think superdave is right, the only way that approach could work is if the cap was either eliminated, increased significantly or relaxed (meaning you let them bend the rules). I also agree with him that you can't just make an exception for Chivas USA, so that means increasing or eliminating the cap. Dave believes that would kill the league -- I'm not sure I agree with him there. If Chivas USA could field a club with Mexican players of a quality equal to a good MFL side, I think they could fill that stadium. More importantly, they might field a better team (although the current roster is quite good). Better players playing before bigger crowds seems to me to be a good thing for the league, if others can and would spend more too. Would they? I think the Galaxy, TFC, and Red Bull almost certainly would -- the Galaxy and TFC to improve their rosters and Red Bull to add more star power. Chicago, Colorado and San Jose might too. All will have SSS with wealthy owners, and the Fire and San Jose are in large markets for endorsements. Houston and DC United would, I think, be ambivalent because of unsettled stadium situations, but once resolved they are well supported and probably could spend more. That leaves Dallas, New England, Kansas City, Columbus and Salt Lake -- either small market teams or owners who have philosophically been more frugal and advocated for the cap. I may have some teams on the wrong side of the ledger, but my guess is that you could find six or seven teams that would embrace spending more and another two or three that would (perhaps reluctantly) go along. The other teams would eventually be sold to more adventuresome owners, which might mean moving them to other cities. A couple might fail. Now for the tough question: is the league better off with 10 or 12 strong teams with, say $10 to $15 million rosters, or 16 teams with $2.1 million rosters (and a handful of DPs)? Personally, as a neutral, I find the smaller, higher quality league very tempting.
Hm, i've read that Wikipedia article, it looks like what they call burrito in Northern Mexico is actually type of taco, not "real" burrito. Co-workers i was referring to came from Zacatecas, Sonora, Michiocan.
They are Chivas USA, and they tried the all Mexican American angle.. it got them in dead last. I see no problem with them having Mexican Americans with some Mexican dps.. that would be just fine, but this is an American league, i would have a problem if the team was full of Mexicans (non Americans) btw.. thats just my "white" standpoint on that. I would be against any team in this entire league being without Americans on it. Im a Revs fan first and a Chivas fan second, I love there style of play... hell i even have a Kljestan jersey... Americans could still root for chivas... I would think any mexican would be happy if they had a white american rooting for there team. just because the team has a history doesnt mean that history can not grow. It would still be there team based on history regardless of who is in the stands rooting and cheering for them.
Upon further review, I didn't think this through. An alternative is for CDUSA to hold on until the next players-owners negotiation, the new labor contract. At this point, I think it's safe to say the salary cap has a pretty good chance to be 50% or so higher than it is now, and with maybe 2 DPs per team. At that point, CDUSA could start bringing in real quality. If you combine the Superliga matches with the CCC matches, MLS is still behind the MFL, but when the MLS teams are motivated, the gap isn't that great. That kind of salary bill would probably get MLS teams on the level of the MFL, if the MFL doesn't also experience substantial revenue growth. In the life of a pro league and a pro sports team, a couple of years is an historical blip.
The remedy may not be as extreme, but I do think your first post hit on the problem for Chivas USA. If they want a Mexican roster and are going to concentrate on a Mexican - American audience, they are competing, at least indirectly, with MFL clubs that their potential fans can easily watch on television. They probably don't have to equal them on the field, but the roster has to to be of a much higher quality than Chivas USA's inaugural season. They might be able to muddle through until the cap is raised, but it won't be easy. Another DP would help, but the problem with DPs is that while the aggregate payroll may be high -- even the Galaxy is about $10 million this year -- it is concentrated in a player or two. Even with two DPs, it would be hard to get quality across the roster (at anything close to MFL clubs) if the remainder of the cap is $3 or even $4 million. What is a typical MFL payroll for the better clubs? Is Pachuca is over $20 million? I come full circle to your original point: if Chivas USA is going to field a roster with quality Mexican players, they need a higher payroll. Until they can buy those better Mexican players, I don't see how the strategy can get any traction. That's why I think that while it may be painful for their ownership, a re-branding strategy might be easier to implement.
I love watching Chivas USA play because more times than not, it's good attacking soocer. And, I applaud the management for going out and getting the best players they could to win, regardless of nationality. But I think it was both naive and inept to think that they could market themselves to Latino fans and, specifically fans of an all-Mexican team, with players named Razov, Marsch, Guzan, Kljestan, Vaughn and Thomas, etc... They have two Mexican starters, one a legend and one whom most fans of CD Guadalajara or the Mexican first division couldn't recognize without a program. Then they've got a Mexican-American (who unfortunately, for marketing, has a very UN-Hispanic sounding name), a Cuban and a no-name Brazilian. That makes for a good team on the field but not exactly a group that's gonna get Mexican-Americans and Mexicans living in the country to think this team is appealing to them, even if it's borrowed it's name from Mexico's most popular team, Using the Chivas brand was always an ill-fated idea in MLS because the one thing that made Chivas so popular with Mexicans - never using anything but Mexicans - was never going to be do-able in a foreign league with a salary cap and international player restrictions.
[Sigh] No. A burrito in Mexico is a burrito. Is like pizza. What we call pizza in the US is not necessarily the same thing in Italy. But. It doesn't mean American's invented the pizza. The burrito originated from Norther Mexico. Now it has evolved in the US from cuisine re-invented by Mexican immigrants, or mass produced (fried, frozen, Taco Bell, etc), or neo-Mexican cuisine which incorporates Mexican and American cuisine. It's like enchiladas. Here in Texas, what gets called enchiladas is a fast food version of the original Mexican enchiladas. In Texas, they add chicken, yellow processed cheesed, and some industrial tomato sauce. Nevertheless, the enchilada is still an original cuisine from Mexico as the burrito. [qoute]Co-workers i was referring to came from Zacatecas, Sonora, Michiocan.[/quote] Well. I am not sure what is the consumption flour tortillas of Zacatecas and Michoacan, but I am surprised by your Sonoran friend. They and Chihuahuans are the "inventors" of the flour tortilla and the burrito. Sonorans have a specialty of making large, large flour tortillas and then adding shredded beef. Some big ass burritos.
The thing for me is that okay Chivas is popular. We all know that. Chivas de Guadalajara is the second most popular team after the Lakers. However, you're still limiting your fanbase. If all the Mexicans supported the other team in LA they'd probably be more popular than the Lakers. A Chivas USA side can work as a USA version of Chivas de Guadalajara, but it can be much more than that. Chivas USA is the only team that limits its fanbase right off the bat.
chapulincolorado, I've never eaten burrito in Mexico, so can't verify your info. But beside wiki article can you provide some reliable links regarding that matter (like a menu in Mexican restaurant located in the area never been visited by American tourists)?
"It's confusing, in some ways, because our team has been playing so well," midfielder Jesse Marsch said. "But I also know that the team is going through a bit of an identity crisis and [is] trying to figure out how to appeal to the mainstream Chivas fans but, also, to . . . mainstream soccer fans. It's not necessarily an easy equation." Jesse Marsch pretty much summed it up. The problem is USA vs Mexico is a heated rivalry on the soccer field and there are a lot of political issues going on right now between the two countries. People who aren't fans of the Chivas team located in Mexico aren't going to be interested. They screwed up when they tried to target one group of people. They needed to start with a name that didn't exclude the majority of soccer fans in the USA. The rest of the teams were smart enough to not do this.
The CD Chivas USA "brand" is a complete failure in my opinion. I think they should re-brand as Club Deportivo Los Angeles and Change the colors. It's fine to honor your Mexican roots. But they need to make it clear that this is an American club. A Los Angeles club. And that they welcome support from all segments of society.
I agree with you, but I would go a little farther and ditch the Spanish name. This is America. Targeting hispanic fans of one team located in Mexico is a bad idea. The name needs to appeal to all ethnic backgrounds.
I like the whole Anglo vs. Latin angle. Certainly if they were the only team in town I'd have a problem with that but it's a 2 team town. Differentiating themselves is good.
How'd you know these were fresas... b/c their papi sent them, o sea on vacation? Perhaps I misspoke: these were ppl I met, not friends. I should've known that. I alluded to it by saying that the flour tortilla was a northern thang, but oh well. Thanks for the clarication.
I do agree that Chivas USA is limiting its fanbase and it does have potential to being more than what it is now. The thing is you cant name it Chivas and turn away from what Chivas is and thats a mexican team. The first year we had pretty good attendence and a sorry team, I know it has a lot to do with curiosity and the novelty but also because the team fielded a lot of mexican kids. The first year hurt the team a lot cuz die hard Chiva fans that watched the first year were disapointed and didnt come back the second year, but we kept some cuz we got Palencia and El Loquito. Its proven if we field mexicans people will show up to the games. The bottom line is I want Chivas USA to succeed and draw people of all races but I also dont want it to get away from what makes it Chivas. Im not saying all mexican but more than what we field now.