I think it would be great to add Rochester. As Rob Stone said it would be the biggest attraction in rochester. if the mls ever grows to be a major sport then rochester would be like the packers of the mls. a rabid fan base, where the game is sold out every game.
Right now I believe their baseball stadium seats 14,000, they average 12,500 during the season, which is pretty impressive compared to other A-League franchises. They've already said that they could average 17,500 if they played in MLS, which is why the stadium would be designed to sit 17,500. Whether that figure would be true, remains to be seen. It seems that there are people from Buffalo and Syracuse who would be willing to buy season tickets if the Rhinos did indeed join MLS. We'll just have to wait and see how all of this plays out. They way I see it (as I've said before), Rhinos are basically a lock for 2005 if their stadium is built by then.
I drove through Oak Street during lunch today. Workmen were installing the "Road Closed" signs. You can see backhoes lined up on Broad Street working on that project, too. It looks like work is about to commence.
I paid the balance on my season tickets the other day and ran into Frank DuRoss. He said that a security fence should be in place by the end of the week. Broad Street is quite torn up--it's evident that the infrastructure improvements are now underway. Looks like its going to be turf...http://www.rochesterdandc.com/sports/rhinos/0415GP3U7J3_sports.shtml Given the multi-use nature of the stadium and our short growing season it is probably the best business decision given the circumstances.
RTFA. "The key issue — this is crucial for area fans who hope PAETEC attracts games involving the United States national teams and top international clubs — is that the surface the Rhinos choose will be FIFA-approved. The Rhinos and fans also don’t want a surface that jeopardizes a jump to Major League Soccer."
Yeah if you read the context around that, they are using the lame argument that it's FIFA approved so MLS OF COURSE would approve it. They never say what MLS prefers.
I know what MLS prefers. But I think MLS, which hasn't had a hard and fast rule since.....well, since ever that I know of...is likely to make allowances if they are truly interested in Rochester as an expansion market. I doubt grasstroturf will put the kibosh on the deal if MLS really wants the positives that Rochester brings to the table. Of course, until the little rubber particles between the blades meet the road, you never know for sure how sincere MLS' interest is.
Just because its FIFA approved doesn't mean people want to use it. When was the last time the National team played on artificle grass? And with so many new stadia with grass and appropriate sized fields, why would they ever want to again? If the stadium is to be a multi-purpose facility that will be used for lacrosse, high school football, rock concerts, tractor pulls, etc., then go with the fake stuff. I'll be the first to wish you continued success in the A-League. But if Rochester wants to be a player not just in MLS, but for national team games, world cup qualifiers, international exhibitions, etc. the field needs to be grass. Especially now with with so many other SSS in the works.
If it's that big a deal (and let's not kid ourselves here - there are a finite number of US Men's National Team games to go around, and Rochester is going to be in the queue along with --- and probably behind --- a lot of folks who want one), they can bring in grass on trays. Didn't they do that in Houston last year and in Portland in 1998? Do you think PaeTec Park is going to become RFK or Gillette overnight and get two or three Nats games a year? You have to think about its primary usage, and what's best economically for the people who are footing the bill, and deal with the nice little problems of US National Team games when you have to deal with it.
In the future a lot more professional sports fields are going to be made with Field Turf. It is not like the artificial turf of the old days. It performs more like grass. The initial cost is high, but it will last for years without watering and there is no replacement and maintainence like real grass. There are some teams in Belgium or some northern European teams playing on it full time. Another nice thing is that weather doesn't kill it.
The regular field at Reliant Stadium is grass. However, it is in the form of the grass trays similar to those used at the Meadowlands. During the NFL offseason, the grass trays are removed, leaving a concrete floor for things like conventions and the annual RodeoHouston in March. However, for some reason, the Texans decided not to install the grass trays for the USA-Mexico game last year and instead put in a temporary grass field. Well, I understand the rationales, but it just amuses me we're seeing this in "Soccertown USA."
It performs just like Southlake and Giants Stadium(bouncy ball). Over the years I've seen at least 4 or 5 games played at Frontier Field on FSW. While that may not be the best vantage point to inspect the quality if the field, I have always been impressed with how nice the field looks, considering that it is constantly switched back and forth to baseball. Are they spending millions for the upkeep of this field? Will lacrosse and marching band competitions tear the field up worse than this? Is there a major difference in climate four blocks away that will allow grass to grow at Frontier Field, but not Paetec? I understand that artificial turf will be cheaper and easier to maintain than grass. I also understand that minor league sports must make tough decisions to make ends meet. It's clear that DuRoss just wants to have a smaller staff to pay each year, but it just bothers me that a soccer stadium in a soccer market is being built by soccer people, and it still won't be quite right. Bouncy Ball-I'd rather have football lines.
The Rochester Rattlers (MLL team) have already been booted from Frontier Field--they now play at a local high school until new soccercentric stadium is completed. Lacrosse is VERY hard on turf. They goals in lacrosse are laid out near the top of the soccer penalty boxes ruining probably the most critical portion of the playing field. There's terrible wear and tear around these areas and at midfield.
As I recall, the trays weren't ready yet (I seem to remmber reading that, anyway). Artificial turf sucks. It used to suck a lot more than it does now, but it still sucks.
Two thoughts: 1. What were you saying in 2002? 2. Obviously, Dallas soccer fans are more discriminating that the ones in "Soccertown USA."
Me and my Fieldturf-induced torn left ACL (yes, I know it could have happened on any surface, but still....) tend to agree on that.
I just want to make sure I have the official nicknames correct. Is Rochester "Soccertown USA" and Portland is or was "Soccer City?" Where's "Soccer Village?" "Soccer Township?" "Soccerville?" "Ciudad de futbol?" "Soccerburg?" How do you get these names? Is it like Hot Springs, New Mexico, which became.....anyone? Anyone?
In 2002 I was saying Dallas sucks. In 2003 I'm saying Dallas sucks. In 2004 I'm saying Dallas sucks. You couldn't draw for your opening day and I bet a MLS franchise in Rochester will outdraw Dallas. Get used to it.