In my opinion, Rochester in MLS? NO CHANCE

*sigh*

Geez, you guys are WAY too uptight in here. I think you get my point.

OK... 5X greater... is that good enough for you? There are plenty of metropolitain areas left with populations 5X greater than Rochester.

 

Ouch!?!... 5X greater??? Guess we're up to EIGHT now...

http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa122099c.htm
1 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA CMSA 20,124,377
2 Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA CMSA 15,781,273
3 Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI CMSA 8,809,846
4 Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV CMSA 7,285,206
5 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA CMSA 6,816,047
6 Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD CMSA 5,988,348
7 Boston-Worcester-Lawrence, MA-NH-ME-CT CMSA 5,633,060
8 Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, MI CMSA 5,457,583
9 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX CMSA 4,802,463
10 Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX CMSA 4,407,579

If you're trying to make a point, please try a little harder next time...

 

Crafty, I'll give you Philly and maybe Detroit, but other than that, I think Rochester would be alright.

 

Yeah, and three of those don't have an MLS team, jackass.

Bottom line - from the 2000 census... Rochester area - 46th and falling fast.. probably somewher in the mid-50's by now, looking at all the rapidly growing cities of similar size as of the last census.


You can argue about the soccer support in the area & the history of the Rhinos and have a genuine point, but if you wanna talk population & demographics as a reason why or why not to put an MLS team in Rochester, your fighting a losing battle.

 

One of those three had one shot and how did that go?

 

would having a decently supported team who don't drag MLS down with their debts not be a good idea?

How big is the MLS TV deal currently anyway? Would the 5% increase in viewers you might get if a city with a larger metropolitan area got in ahead of them make a great deal of difference?

 

Yeah, I KNOW you are but what am I?... I know you ARE but what am I?... I know YOU are but what am I?... Jinx, you owe me a coke... Red rover, red rover, let Crafty come over...

Hmmm... population and demographics?... would I listen to some ya-hoo from Schaumburg or would I listen to the American City Business Journals?
http://www.bizjournals.com/specials/2006/0213/major_metros_chart.html?hbx=slide_sport_article

For grins, check out Cleveland, Milwaukee, St Louis, Atlanta, Seattle, Miami, Tampa-St Pete, Minneapolis-St Paul...
Then, tell me who's fighting a "losing battle."

 

Oh, that's definately good for Grins... Other cities that scored the "high score" of 100 for MLS ability with Rochester:

Peoria, IL
Springfield, IL
Boise, ID
Charleston, WV
Des Moines, IA
Eugene, OR
Anchorage, AK
Fresno, CA
Ft. Wayne, IN
Jackson, MS
Portland, ME

Throwing your lot in there with a bunch of winners, eh? LOL... If this is the best source you've got to supplement your case, then that's pretty damn sad, dontchathink?

It's even funnier that they score the laundry list of cities that the MLS is ACTUALLY considering poorly... That's cute.

 

They're still a helluva lot smarter than you are... the POINT of the piece is to show even TINY cities are economically capable of supporting an MLS team-- moreso than ANY OTHER MAJOR LEAGUE.

If you don't understand the HUGE amount of civic resources that go into NFL, NBA and MLB teams that dominate their markets in tv, radio, luxury suites, corporate, print media and political support, then I dunno what to tell you... by reading the Chicago Tribune, I wouldn't even know Chicago has a MLS team.

What would I LOVE to see for MLS? Teams in decent sized cities where fans can actually follow the team... like Rochester.

Why? Because I remember as a kid listening to Tulsa Roughnecks home games and a few road ones on KRMG, AM740. Now where exactly, what radio station, can YOU hear the Fire in ENGLISH in Chicago??? WGN? WMAQ? the Score??? Hell, no. And I got to see most of the NASL Roughnecks' road/playoff games on the local ABC affiliate back in the day... the Fire on tv?!? Well, thank god I've got Comcast... AND that cheap MLSnet package.

When you make your bizarre case for "large markets only," it flies in the face of countless statements from MLS officials to the contrary. Sorry MLS isn't 10-for-10 in the top 10 largest markets... if you hadn't noticed, neither is the friggin NFL... they seem to survive just fine without a team in LA or Orange County... the WORST mistake MLS could possibly make right now is a misguided attempt at a "national footprint." The NASL was not doomed so much by "over-expansion" as it was this attempt at a "national footprint" to look good for a three year ABC tv package by giving them teams in Philly, Houston and Atlanta playing in Veterans Stadium, the Astrodome and Fulton County Stadium..... those outdoor games for the Fury, Hurricane and Chiefs were disasters... and I have no doubt the media ratings for ABC's NASL coverage wasn't much to write home about, either.

 

I think that's mixed around... let me fix it for you:

The piece is POINTLESS because it ridiculously points to TINY, flat broke economic backwaters that in no possible way could support MLS or fit into MLS current plans such as Peoria, IL, Fresno, CA, and Jackson, MS, proving this is more laughable than ANY OTHER SOURCE I'VE SEEN YET.



And Anchorage is better fitted for MLS than Cleveland, Seattle, or St. Louis? Is this Anchorage franchise supposed to build a domed soccer specific stadium so they can play games in April & into November for the playoffs? Can you read that without bursting into laughter?

 

"Market's capacity as a % to support a team in the league
(100 = fully capable)"
Methodology: http://www.bizjournals.com/specials/2006/0213/methodology.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/specials/2006/0213/sports_expansion/7.html
http://www.bizjournals.com/specials/2006/0213/sports_overextend/1.html
http://www.bizjournals.com/edit_special/36.html

Per usual, you fail to see the point... NONE of those smaller cities you mentioned could come up with the economics to support any other sport but MLS (and they're not "backwaters"... have you ever been to ANY of these cities???).

Just fer grins, I read some of your other annoyingly pompous and craptastic posts in the Fire forum...

 

The three cities I mentioned I brought up because I have been to all three. Multiple times and recently. Have you been to Fresno lately?? It's a post-nuclear hellhole. The downtown area is a ghost-town. Just about every building is vacant.

The same can be said more-or-less about Jackson MS...

Peoria is somewhat better off economically, but no way in hell could it support an MLS team. Same goes for every other city I listed. I don't honestly believe Rochester belongs in that group of cities as far as an MLS expansion possibility, but I'm trying to make a point about this study. It's abundantly obvious that it's flawed. I mean, they really aren't thinking too much when they say Anchorage is a "100" for abiliity to support an MLS franchise. Can you at least agree with that?


And as for my posts in the Fire forum, I got ripped for my opinions in the thread, but somehow I got a ton of rep & personal messages behind the scenes that were positive & supported my position. I think more people see it the same way I do than you think, they're just tired of arguing against those who are so passionately delusional (not necessarily a bad thing) that they think the Fire's 8-year history needs to be defended at all costs even though the team and league are bleeding cash and not nearly as healthy as people want to hope they are. I think that "Fire's Vaunted History" crowd is definately the loudest, but is also definately not the majority.


I know I won't bring it up again because I obviously can't reason with this group pf Section 8-ers. I'll just join the silent majority who are able to look at the league & the Fire without blinders and rose-colored glasses on.

 

Ruffnex... per this study you're referencing, Greenville NC is a "100", meaning it's perfectly capable of supporting an MLS Franchise, right?

According to the 2000 census, the Greenville, NC Metropolitan area (not just the city, the whole damn area) had a total population of 133,000 people! That mean's that, in order to support an MLS franchise, more than 1 in 10 citizens within this metropolitan area would have to go to every single game! LOL... (not to mention the odds of a rural NC population not being much more into NASCAR, Football, and College Basketball than soccer).

I mean... when I see something asinine like that in a study, any study on any topic, I have a hard time taking it seriously & question the validity of any single assertion made in the study.

And Greenville's only the second most ridiculous "MLS capable" city mentioned... Anchorage, AK isn't just rediculous, it'd be impossible for various reasons.

 

knock it off or restrictions to the Expansion forum will be put in place.