Mistake #1 Mistake #2. (You've just described two different centers, especially in D/FW.) Congratulations on writing an entire sentence that's indisputably accurate. Frisco is neither the geographic center nor the population center of D/FW. Which two city centers? Oh, are you talking about Dallas and Ft. Worth? So, you're suggesting Arlington? Well, it's not the population center of D/FW, and the major sports team that's played there for 40 years doesn't draw well from... Dallas. So your contention is that the suburb 20 miles west of Dallas that has no mass transit is infinitely preferable to the suburb 25 miles north of Dallas that has no mass transit, simply on the basis that you'd be swapping out the north Dallas suburbs for Ft. Worth and the Mid-Cities? Do I have that right? By stating that, you're implying that you do know the ideal location. Mind you, that assessment is likely based on a cursory glance at a map and precisely zero knowledge about local geography, but humor me. Don't give yourself too much credit. What you've stated is a BigSoccer meme that's been beaten to death by cluefucks with zero clue about the area. Or I think otherwise because I was a season ticket holder for all eight and a half years that they played two miles east of downtown Dallas, the vast majority of which time they had worse attendance and a weaker fan base than they do in Frisco. But hey, you're the expert in basic urban planning and economies of scale. Do go on. I have no earthly clue about Sacramento or the surrounding areas, which is the reason why I haven't offered up any opinions about this particular plan. And while you've done yeoman's work in proving the adage about not needing to have any sort of knowledge of a particular subject in order to offer up an opinion on the Internet, I still have some pride in my own work.
I am not arguing. I'm telling you - as someone who has been (rightfully) put in his place already by someone who knows far more about FC Dallas than you or I do - that there are several reasons for what you perceive to be as FCD's unsatisfactory attendance. Frisco is not a major one. Like when they played actually in Dallas, right? And they packed them in? Also, there is no such ********ing thing as "easily pulling in much higher attendance." Only fanboys with no clue about how tickets get sold say shit like that.
Which doesn't mean they will actually come. Which has actually been FCD's problem, historically. It's not been one of not having people in the vicinity. It's been one of being largely unable to effectively reach those who are.
While I appreciate your attempt to meticulously respond to my post, sorry, ElJefe, you're wrong. You're under some assumption that I don't know what I'm talking about. Unlucky for you, I'm not your average uninformed idiot posting on BS. First off, neither of the first two "mistakes" you list are mistakes. I know quite well what I'm describing. Yes, people live in Frisco. Yes, Dallas and Fort Worth are two separate urban centers. Where are the mistakes there? Is FC Dallas' market the entire Dallas-Fort Worth metro area or is it not? If you're just trying to draw people from around the suburbs north of Dallas, sure, Frisco is an okay location. If you're trying to draw people from the entire region, it's a bad one. It's a very simple premise: put a venue in a location where the travel time for the residents in your metro area is the lowest average as possible. It's not a hard concept to understand. Having a stadium in Irving or a little north of there (which is more closer to the geographic center of the population than Arlington is) would have a lower on average travel time for all residents in the metro area. Yes, you factor in all sorts of other factors like mass transit, the fact of white flight to all of the suburbs north of Dallas, and areas of higher income. But you don't ignore geography, and you don't put it on the periphery of a metro region that is 60 miles wide. So yes, that is my contention, and yes, you have that right. The attendance was terrible when they played at the Cotton Bowl? Oh no! You got me! Oh, wait, you mean the attendance was terrible in 2004 and prior as it was for every other MLS team as the league was struggling for attendance and contracting? That since then the league has grown with the arrival of stars like Beckham, league expansion, more exposure on national TV, more coverage in media, new SSSs, and with it, higher average attendance? Of course they have higher attendance and fan support than 2004 and before. That is across the board for MLS clubs. What I'm saying is that if Pizza Hut Park was in a more easily accessible location to everyone in the Dallas-Fort Worth metro, you guys would be enjoying better attendance and support. Sacramento is small by comparison. But a similar distance would be to put the stadium in Vacaville, which is an incredible stretch to call part of "Sacramento." I'm not some idiot spouting off opinion as fact. I work with maps for a living. I deal with city geography, I deal with transit, I deal with planning. I conduct analyses using GIS software modeling road networks and travel times and using population numbers and demographics to conduct studies for cities and counties all over the United States. I'm a professional Geographer. But what do I know. I'm just talking out of my ass with no knowledge of the area, right? I hope I "humored" you.
Of course inept ownership, lack of putting together a quality team or pay for big players, and complete lack of marketing are things that factor in to poor attendance - I'm not ignoring those. But yes, having the location in Frisco is a major factor as well.
It sure is easier to get convince someone in Arlington to come out to a game when the trip is a 10 minute drive rather than a 45 minute one, isn't it?
Whatever the deal with Frisco and Dallas attendance is... It seems to me that the most telling thing about this is MLS' own words as far as central/downtown location goes. The league wants to move away from putting stadiums far outside of the cities. It seems like a terrible idea anyways.
Yes - that's the evening commute. Key with that is the traffic is heading AWAY from downtown, not TO it. I would get into the same arguments with people about a new Sacramento arena downtown vs the current location in Natomas. People don't understand that no one is driving TO Downtown in the evening commute. If games were to be played at 9am on a weekday then we would have a traffic issue, one which I might even oppose a downtown location. Thankfully, games will be primarily Saturday evenings when traffic to downtown isn't an issue. As someone who works in downtown Sac (and my aforementioned line of work), trust me on this. What would be a mistake would be to build a stadium just outside of downtown where you have evening commuters combined with game traffic (which is what currently happens on I-5 north nights of big games/events). You also have all of the other reasons to build downtown, not least of which include mass transit, accessibility by walking/biking, urban residents and workers who could easily hop over to games. If anything, it would actually alleviate traffic heading out of town. You put it out in the burbs, and you force everyone to have to drive there, as is the case with Sleep Train Arena.
With one exception. Until last year, I commuted between Davis and Rancho Cordova for 13 years and speeds for the evening rush on inbound 50 from approx. Bradshaw to the hwy 99 or I-5 interchanges with 50 often ranged from stop and go to 35 mph. If the Kings were playing a weeknight game, it tended to be worse because of traffic trying to get from hwys 99 and 50 to northbound 5 at that ridiculous downtown interchange. It was much, much worse before the installation of the lights monitoring traffic flow on the on ramps onto 50, reducing the bottle necks. I don't commute south on 99 toward Elk Grove, but the few times that I have, I can't imagine adding soccer traffic to that mess, even for a USL game.
Exactly - yet another reason in a laundry list of why it's a bad location. You're right about the 50/I5 interchange. Lits of people commute from Rancho Cordova to their homes in Natomas or South Sac. That has to be one of the most miserable commutes in the region, though I would rank the business 80 to/out of Sac and the Elk Grove via 99 right up there.
Late as always, but if Chivas USA came to Sac-town (or in this case Elk Grove) would you still support the club. Especially w/ this new idea of cultivating Mexican talent? I know I would, cause I would love to have a MLS franchise here in Sac-town. Call me a tool, but I rather have it than a 2nd tier side.
1. I would not support any team located in Elk Grove. 2. I would not support the Chivas USA brand nor ownership in any way. They are both an embarrassment to the league as a colony club and a discriminatory organization. Their brand is doomed to failure. In either case, I would much rather continue supporting the San Jose Earthquakes.
Interesting tweet referenced in Marcos Breton's column from Dan Garber in today's Bee... "On Tuesday, Don Garber, commissioner of Major League Soccer, tweeted me to say he was coming here to check out Sacramento in the next month." http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/24/5366465/marcos-breton-time-to-drop-the.html
An article inside the back cover of the sac pro soccer day program emphasized the importance of a downtown SSS in any attempt to lure MLS. Bringing MLS to Sac was a major point talked about by both Smith and Preki when addressing the crowd between games. Tower Bridge Battalion is still a little small and they weren't exactly shouting out the songs/chants, but they do seem to be off to a good start, and they put together a nice tivo, which I assume was the crest they carried onto the field.
They put together a tivo? My VCR is still blinking 12:00 - 12:00 - 12:00, so that's pretty impressive.
Hehehe.. I talked to someone from the Battalion at the game and they said the Raley Field security confiscated their bull horn and some other items, and weren't letting them stand/chant for the first half. The crew is just too used to baseball I guess! Pretty funny.. And yet, they were selling vuvuzelas at the game! :::facepalm::::
Anyone else thinking this is basically a death blow to the Elk Grove group? I just have the sense that now, if the Elk Grove folks don't smarten up and join up with the Sacramento guys, then they're just going to get run over.
It's not a death blow, they'll still try to lure a team there, or falsely give their residents hope that they can provide the home for Sacramento Republic FC. It has never been about soccer to their city leaders, it's about creating more sprawl and development in their city. They'll pursue it even if they build a stadium and have no team to play in it if they are able. I am just incredibly happy that this ownership group recognizes the necessity of having a stadium downtown.
Maybe death blow was the wrong metaphor -- too direct and immediate. Still, they're not going to get any traction. MLS isn't going to come to meet with them (unless it's just a courtesy visit because they're already meeting with the Sacramento people). From now on it's going to be about building Republic FC a stadium, and about getting that team in MLS. That's where the energy will be. And it'll all be in Sacramento proper. Elk Grove may linger on for a bit, but from now on I think they'll just be losing steam.