I am just happy MLS is not going back to a 3 conference set up. I am fine with FC in the East or West. Each one has its positives.
From an entertainment and aesthetic perspective, fewer games against KC is a positive for those attending games.
Seriously, though, I'm disappointed. After all, who gives a ******** about geography in sports leagues?
I'm one of those people that thinks that while fans might care about a great many things, "geographic correctness" is not one of them.
i'm in total agreement. hell, we could just eschew the geographic names and call them something else, like the Pele Conference and the Maradona Conference. (crap names, but you get the idea)
If true the East just got a lot stronger and the West got a lot weaker with the two expansion teams. Good news for Dallas I guess. I assume we are still looking at a 32 game schedule with 20 against in-conference teams so FCD plays RSL and Chivas 4 times each and only sees the DCU, Columbus and KC (the three best teams in 2004) twice. Sounds like a good deal for a team desperate to make the playoffs.
OK, let's redesign the conferences from scratch. First, a few "must have" items: Gals and Chivas USA and San Jose together in one conference Colorado and Salt Lake together in one conference Dallas and Chicago together in one conference DC and Metros and New England together in one conference Dallas and Chivas USA together in one conference (this apparently is a great consideration for MLS suits) Now the "would be nice" items. In other words, items that would be nice to have, if you can make them work: Chicago and Columbus together in one conference Kansas City and LA together in one conference Columbus and DC together in one conference Kansas City and Colorado together in one conference Kansas City and Chicago together in one conference Given all of that, how about: Conference A Galaxy Chivas USA San Jose Dallas Chicago Kansas City Conference B Colorado Salt Lake Columbus DC Metros New England
Considering that an expansion team won the championship in 1998, I don't know that we're automatically making out like bandits here.
Plus, I'm sure that Chicago would appreciate having two home games against Chivas USA, for much the same reasons that Greg Elliott and co. would like it.
second highest Latino pop. in the US behind LA, right? and some might feel that they were slighted by Chivas moving to LA instead of Chicago, though maybe not.
I like El Jefe's breakdown. Although I was hoping you guys would come to the East, just because I've always enjoyed your rivalry with Chicago. And because now we have to play KC four times a year, and that means suck.
Either that, or Dallas is staying in the West so that they can stay together with the soon-to-be-Houston Earthquakes.
Practically speaking, I don't think MLS can afford to incur the kind of travel costs associated with geographically mixed-up conferences. And the reserve squad issue is going to add to that.