Expansion based on metro area population

Re: Expansion based on city population

That sounds good, but what about Dallas, NJ, New England? The attendance isn't great, and yet the population is big enough.

Second just because the population is big doesn't certify that you will get people coming to the games in the first place.

Sounded good, but in all reality it was a bad thread, no facts to back it up.

 

Re: Expansion based on city population

if we added all those cities we would be at a total of 26 teams and i think i remember seeing on mlsnet.com that they want to expand to no more than 18. maybe after 18 they will wait about 5 years and start again and split them up into 2 division and expand in both until we have 2 divisions of 18 teams. but like they said above, dallas is huge and they have low support so i dont think that expanding based on population would be a good thing.

 

Re: Expansion based on city population

If you're putting those in order of population, I think Rochester doesn't even belong on the map. Unless I'm mistaken Atlanta is the 10th-largest city in the US. I'm pretty sure Philly & Houston are bigger but after that we may be the largest city without an MLS team past or present (Miami). I'm just hoping that since we're one of the 9 cities on the radar that we'll get a team soon. The fact that we had one of the 8 WUSA teams has to count for something, right?

 

Re: Expansion based on city population

mtbuckelew, sent you a pm

 

Re: Expansion based on city population

This should NEVER be a prime factor in choosing cities for expansion

HISTORY of support for soccer will supply more fans than a large population with no history of soccer

NO BASEBALL is a major consideration - Soccer is still secondary in the summer (EVEN IN DC where there's always more publicity about the Orioles or the Redskins) - Baseball just drowns everything else out

Rochester is the best choice
Then Philly

NOT Atlanta or Phoenix- NOR San Antonio or Cleveland - no history or too much conflict with already small market teams in Dallas and Columbus, respectively

Portland OR Seattle is a possibility

UNKNOWN - San Diego - Big population - BUT how big is soccer in the community in this area - Could be good marketing versus LA Galaxy but ChivasUSA is already doing that

 

Re: Expansion based on city population

Like Tampa Bay? Remember the wildly successful Rowdies and the wildly defunct Mutiny?

Yeah, that history is sooo important.

Look, here are the factors: 1. committed, wealth owners 2. SSS in the pipeline or on the go; consideration given to dirt cheap rent on NFL stadium 3. an area that can support an MLS franchise.

HUGE. SD could sustain an MLS side w/ a decent 20K stadium and committed ownership.

 

Re: Expansion based on city population

Population is one factor, but there are others. Look at the Metros, they play in an area with a huge popualtion, but still have trouble drawing. I was critized on these boards (fan rivals board) by a DC fan when I brought up the NY Yankees as a factor, but unless you live near NY you don't realize how big of a factor they are. Also, one has to remember that during the summer New Jersey has the beaches of the shore and New York those of Long Island. Given a choice on a 90 degree weekend day during the summer, the beach usually wins. Remember a Philly team will also have the Jersey beaches to contend with.

 

Re: Expansion based on city population

Hold on now expansionests!
1) Plant your stadium first (it would help if it was already built) the map the hour to hour and a half travel time to it.
2) Find the population of #1
3) Find the population of #2 that are of the demographic that will attend soccer.
4) Find the population of #3 that can afford the travel, parking and ticket prices.
NOW figure out the rankings of the cities.
I would venture that the Big Cities fail in this analysis.
20 miles in the NY-NJ area is 1 hour travel. But I can travel 62 miles in about an hour to the stadium in SLC.

Overexpansion at the top level dilutes talent (ask MLB about it). There must be a strong and stable devlopment system. This means the second divsion clubs must be viable enough in attendance, talent, finaces and stadiums to constantly threaten the status of the top level clubs. and the some relationship for each level down.

I have generally proclained that the is a 20 to 1 pymamid of talent for each level of Soccer (It takes 220 MLS level players to make the national team just as much as it takes 220 under 14 players to really build a high school team). The US has it at the bottom and the top but not in the middle.

 

Re: Expansion based on city population

Let's not turn this into yet another pro/rel dicussion.

 

Re: Expansion based on city population

when do you guys think New Orleans will get a MLS team, back in the day they had one back when MLS first started. Their population is low with only 484,674 people. But their Hispanic and Latino race is 3.06% of the city, which is about 15,000 people. They have a 2 pretty good youth clubs that could support them. I think an MLS team in New Orleans would be good. I think they woul dhave good fan suport.There is already a stdium build suitable for the team too. Jesuit, one of the High Schools that plays at the stadium, gets about a thousand to two thousand in a big game.....tell me what u think.

 

Re: Expansion based on city population

Here are the cities listed by population. info is from the last census, and the sports team attendances are like 2002 or 2001
the litthe number in ( ) is the cities rank as a media market.



1 (1) New York- 21,199,865 +8.4%
Jets (78,028)-Giants (78,023)
Yankees (40,662)-Mets (33,448)
Metro Stars-MLS (20,806)
Rangers (17,899)-Islanders (13,934)-Devils (15,083)
Knicks (19,763) –Nets (10,429)


2 (2) Los angles- 16,373,645 +12.7%
Dodgers (38,247)-Angles (27,815)
Mighty Ducks (11,603)-Kings (15,947)
Clippers (16,989)-Lakers (18,997)
Galaxy-MLS (17,387)

3 (3) Chicago- 9,157,540 +11.1%
Cubs (34,739)-White sox (16,656)
Bears (55,757)
Bulls (18,101)
Black Hawks (14,566)
Fire-MLS (16,388)

4 (8,24) Washington Baltimore- 7,608,070 +13.1%
Redskins (83,102)-Ravens (68,930)
Wizards (20,674)
Orioles (42,372)
Capitols (17,309)
DC United-MLS (21,518)

5 (5) San Francisco- 7,039,362 +12.6%
Giants (25,659)-Athletics (17,712)
Raiders (57,411)-49ers (67,665)
Sharks (17,347)
Warriors (14,580)
Earthquakes-MLS (9,635)

6 (4) Philadelphia- 6,188,463 +5%
Eagles (65,518)
Phillies (22,535)
Sixers (20,438)
Flyers (19,515)

7 (6) Boston- 5,819,100 +6.7%
Red Sox (30,201)
Patriots (59,681)
Bruins (14,150)
Celtics (15,031)
Revolution-MLS (15,654)

8 (10) Detroit- 5,456,428 +5.2%
Lions (76,446)
Tigers (25,174)
Pistons (18,305)
Redwings (20,058)

9 (7) Dallas- 5,221,801 +29.3%
Cowboys (63,264)
Rangers (34,253)
Stars (18,532)
Mavericks (18,854)
Burn-MLS (12,574)

10 (11) Houston- 4,669,571 +25.2%
Texans (new)
Astros (33,408)
Rockets (11,847)

11 (9) Atlanta- 4,112,192 +38.9%
Falcons (54,542)
Braves (40,554)
Hawks (12,246)
Thrashers (13,344)
Silverbacks A-League (1,006)

12 (15) Miami - 3,876,380 +21.4%
Marlins (16,906)
Dolphins (73,718)
Heat (15,956)
Panther hockey (16,302)
U of Miami
Fusion MLS RIP(11,177)

13 (12) Seattle- 3,554,760 +19.7%
Mariners (35,999)
Seahawks (53,906)
Sonics (13,956)
Sounders A-League (4,087)

14 (16) Phoenix- 3,251,876 +45.3%
Diamondbacks (37,234)
Cardinals (50,003)
Suns (15,881)
Coyotes (12,470)

15 (13) Minneapolis- 2,968,806 +16.9%
Twins?? (14,942)
Vikings (64,176)
Timber wolves (17,069)
Wild (18,396)
Thunder A-League (3,862)

16 (17) Cleveland- 2,945,831 +3%
Indians (42,820)
Browns (72,749)
Cavs (14,024)

17 (26) San Diego- 2,813,833 +12.6%
Padres (31,155)
Chargers (54,664)

18 (22) St Louis- 2,603,607 +4.5%
Rams (66,050)
Cardinals (40,197)
Blues (18,847)

19 (18) Denver- 2,581,506 +30.4%
Broncos (72,698)
Rockies (39,949)
Avalanche (18,007)
Nuggets (14,498)
Rapids-MLS (16,458)

20 (14) Tampa- 2,395,997 +15.9%
Buccaneers (65,589)
Devil Rays (21,601)
Lightning (16,089)
Mutiny-MLS RIP(10,479)

21 (21) Pittsburgh- 2,358,695 –1.5%
Pirates (20,348)
Steelers (54,929)
Penguins (15,701)
River hounds A-league (2,278)

22 (23) Portland- 2,265,223 +26.3%
Blazers (19,034)
Timbers A-League (6,261)

23 (32) Cincinnati- 1,979,202 +8.9%
Bengal’s (59,932)
Reds (25,292)
River Hawks A-League (734)

24 (19) Sacramento- 1,796,857 +21.3
Kings (17,317)

25 (31) Kansas City- 1,776,062 +12.2%
Chiefs (78,367)
Royals (18,709)
Wizards-MLS (10,954)

26 (33) Milwaukee- 1,689,572 +5.1%
Brewers (21,140)
Bucks (18,579)
Rampage A-league (2,058)

27 (20) Orlando- 1,644,561 +34.3%
Magic (14,606)

28 (25) Indianapolis- 1,607,486 +16.4%
Colts (56,807)
Pacers (16,791)
Blast A-League (2,173)

29 (37) San Antonio- 1,592 383 +20.2%
Spurs (19,673)

30 (42) Norfolk- 1,569,541 +8.8%
Mariners A-league (1,018)

31 (51) Las Vegas- 1,563,282 +83.3%

32 (34) Columbus- 1,540,157 +14.5%
Blue Jackets (18,136)
Ohio State Buckeyes
Crew-MLS (17,511)

33 (27) Charlotte- 1,499,293 29.0%
Panther football (62,286)
Eagles A-league (1,081)

34 (43) New Orleans- 1,337,726 +4.1%
Saints (62,419)
Hornets (11,097)

35 (35) Salt lake- 1,333,914 +24.4%
Jazz (18,284)


So, really, this is the list in order of largest population without a team.

I removed Miami and Tampa too


Philadelphia- 6,188,463 +5%

Detroit- 5,456,428 +5.2%

Houston- 4,669,571 +25.2%

Atlanta- 4,112,192 +38.9%

Seattle- 3,554,760 +19.7%

Phoenix- 3,251,876 +45.3%

Minneapolis- 2,968,806 +16.9%

Cleveland- 2,945,831 +3%

San Diego- 2,813,833 +12.6%

St Louis- 2,603,607 +4.5%

Pittsburgh- 2,358,695 –1.5%

Portland- 2,265,223 +26.3%

Cincinnati- 1,979,202 +8.9%

Sacramento- 1,796,857 +21.3

Milwaukee- 1,689,572 +5.1%

Orlando- 1,644,561 +34.3%

Indianapolis- 1,607,486 +16.4%

San Antonio- 1,592 383 +20.2%

Norfolk- 1,569,541 +8.8%

Las Vegas- 1,563,282 +83.3%

Charlotte- 1,499,293 29.0%

New Orleans- 1,337,726 +4.1%

 

Re: Expansion based on city population

 

Re: Expansion based on city population

I don't know where you got your attendance figuers from but the Steelers sell out every game in a 64,000 seat stadium and the Lions play in a 65,000 seat stadium so it is impossible for them to draw 78,000....

 

Re: Expansion based on city population

Those attendace figures were from 2 years ago I think. You know, before the steelers finished Heinz Field, and back when the Lions played in the Silverdome or whatever it was called.

IIRC there is no actual figure for the texans right? so I think it was either during their first season or something like that.


Ping, Palmbeach has always been part of the MSA of Miami I belive. If ya know when this happened or whatever let me know ok. I am always interested in this stuff.

But to counter your point, Miami is an amazingly spread out place N to S, and Trafic sucks. Not to mention that when soccer does head back to Miami metro it will need extremely deep pockets if it ever hopes to catch on. Basicly there is no such thing as a city that "Deserves" a team. they had one and no one showed up. I wish they did, and I think the Fusion were on the right track and had a future, but well if 5000 more miamians were at every game we wouldnt have to speculate.

yup yup

VOR

 

Re: Expansion based on city population

Accordingly, Houston and Philly deserve a team too

 

Re: Expansion based on city population

To correct something real quick. San Antonio is 275 miles away from Dallas, or well over 4 hrs by car.

 

Re: Expansion based on city population

hey pingudo
that list isn't accurate to population. why would san antonio join so late when they are the eighth largest city in the country. Also whoever said atlanta is the 10th largest city is wrong. it is # 41, just a little off. Based on population Rochester would never recieve a team.

a good list based solely on order of population would be

philly, houston
phoenix ,san antonio
san antonio, detroit
san francisco, indy
baltimore, milwaukee
seattle, nashville
portland, new orleans
cleveland, atlanta
miami, st. louis
and that's 30 teams
*note i did not include cities that i thought were bad for sports regardless of pop. also i didn't include oakland because i already had san fran and san jose in the bay area, and i didn't include anaheim because there are already l.a. and chivas in so. cal.
also i am open to proving the ranks of population to anyone because i can

 

Re: Expansion based on city population

The figure for Atlanta being 10th (actually 11th) is based on metropolitan population (4,112,198). The actual city population is 416,474, according to the 2000 census, which puts it at 39th.

Expansion based on population would be nice, but for the time being, it will be based on whoever ponies up the dough and builds (or promises to build) a stadium. If a town like Rochester or Salt Lake City can get up the money, have a suitable stadium in place (or build one), and get the required number of season ticketholders, then I say go for it, even if it is a smaller market.

 

Re: Expansion based on city population

Interesting thread. Of course as we have heard a thousand times from the commish, an expansion city with a committed investor with plans for a SSS are the main criteria...but these populations #s are certainly important too. As MLS grows, sponsors want to get exposure in the larger markets, and being in larger cities potentially puts MLS in better position for national tv deals. Another thing to consider is that MLS wants to expand its "footprint" so considering population and region, the regional rankiings would probably look something like this:

Northwest
1. Seattle
2. Vancouver, CN
3. Portland
4. Sacramento

Southeast
1. Miami
2. Atlanta
3. Tampa
4. Orlando
5. Charlotte
6. New Orleans

Southwest
1. Houston
2. Phoenix
3. San Antonio

Central
1. Detroit
2. Minneapolis
3. Cleveland
4. St. Louis
5. Pittsburgh
6. Cincinatti
7. Milwaukee

Northeast
1. Philadelphia
2. Toronto, CN
3. Rochester

If MLS is hoping to be an 18-20 team league in 10yrs or so, then that leaves 6-8 expansion teams...so make your picks.