Why the hell is this a pandering issue? Why can't we just go with a table that makes the most logical sense? Why arbitrarily group the teams into conferences for no purpose just to be like other americans? You have totally insulted the intelligence of everyone in this country. Why the hell do you think someone can't understand a numbered ranking?
Well, if we are going to attract mainsteam American fans, resembling mainstream American sports helps their comfort level. And currently the MLS is being marketed as "If you like (major sport 1) you will like soccer" it would make sense to keep divisions. However, I am just figuring out that enough Americans follow soccer around the world to follow a single table format in the MLS.
I see the "logic" of having divisions, but I disagree that it makes sense. To me, if it's just an effort to make MLS "look" like other American sport tables, it's not worth it. Do what's best for Soccer; don't bend over for people who don't care about you in the first place. They may care later, but respect is what soccer needs more than anything else in the US, and you don't get that by demonstrating your inferiority complex publicly by weakly imitating (unnecesarily) other sports. There aren't enough teams to "require" splitting into divisions, so why do it? Have the courage to be different!
For the record, I think a single table would be great. My argument is for what I think the MLS will do.
================================= 17 teams in a single table is no problem... simply 16 x2 =32 game schedule Know that every team only comes in once, you market according.. And if your a fan of a visting team that you root fan, you circle that date on your calendar and even if you only go to one game that year, thats the one... Anything above 14 after this year-- 16,17,18, 20 whatever, cries out for single table home and away.. ANY other conference/divisional set ups get too messy and unbalenced... The Galaxy and Becks would almost be a sell out on every road trip assuming he is healty and still playing well up to that point and by 2008-2009, hopefully some more DP's of star caliber and non-Beck's games and your tradional rival games, home openers, 4th of July games and last games of the year (should be a solid Fan Appreciation day league wide on last home games), you should have no problem in getting some more sell outs especially in SSS's. That should get more media attentention, investor interest, fans to get serious about buying season tickets or at least tickets in advance..
A little bird told me that the 33,000 seat stadium going up right now in Tijuana and ready for play in late 2008 should be given short mention.
I love this idea. 33,000 fans go into Tijuana from San Diego for an MLS game. 66,000 fans come back.......
Highly unlikely that MLS would put a team in Tijuana. But there are some Mexican clubs that don't draw well so I would expect some movement there. Another thing to toss out--Chivas USA is making it clear that they're unhappy with attendance in the HDC. This is their best team and yet they can't draw fans. They're in the process of hiring a new GM and I'm wondering if they'll move. Maybe to some other place in LA or maybe to an entirely different city.
Real short mention cause it will never happen, unless the US annexes TJ, which would suck cause then HS kids wouldn't have any where to party.
I don't think having 17 lined up for 2010 would be a bad idea. (But Seattle must have a SSS plan in place - I am not interested in Qwest as a permanent venue.) 17 is a good number because it provides you flexibility. If, in the next couple years, it seems necessary to get rid of an existing team for lack of attendance, a SSS plan falling through, etc., you have the option to go down to 16 w/o a last-ditch scramble for a city. And you have the flexibility to go up to 18 soon thereafter. That said, I don't really see MLS going past 18 for a long time, so if you aren't in line to get in soon, you may be waiting until 2025 or so...
Touche. I just recall Chivas USA pointing at Tijuana as their San Diego option demographically...And I can certainly imagine Garber pointing at an SSS and an invester in Tijuana (Caliente), calling it the San Diego Area and feeding the SUM-MFL synergy. If it's West Coast 2009, it's not Vancouver. So it's Seattle or Portland. If not then...
Not to worry. It has already been announced a few weeks ago that Garber's expansion goal has changed from 16 MLS teams by 2010 to 18 teams by 2012. Here's the quick recap so far then: 2008: San Jose for sure 2009: Right now, unless something drastically changes, St. Louis will be announced for 2009. The stadium proposal looks like it has strong support, and they're probably only a couple days from an MLS announcement. 2010: Philly looks like a strong shot due to the fact that MLS has given them special notice, tell them specifically that they need a stadium deal finalized by the end of the year, and their officials seem more than supportive. 2011: Unless the Sounders are brought into MLS the same year as Philly, it's hard to see Seattle in at this point before 2011. But I do think that before the start of next season, Seattle will be announced with a new stadium deal in play. That leaves one team in 2012, and that team will more than likely be Western, and I think more likely to be announced after the 2008 season starts. Sounds like a toss-up between Vancouver, Portland, and Las Vegas at this point.
I can see this 2009 - Seattle, St. Louis, Philadelphia 2010 - Portland 2012 - New York, Las Vegas 2014 - Montreal, Vancouver 2016 - Phoenix, Cleveland
a St. Louis Post-Dispatch story said they might consider expanding 18 by 2010. While this is really fast, it would solve the philly/stl/seattle debate! Who would the 18th be then......
I would think more like the SouthEast - Atlanta possibly. It's the last major area without a team. Portland - MLS may go there, but not immediately after going to Seattle - they would like to see how Seattle draws from the entire region before they expand in the PNW again Vegas - I personally only see Vegas if MLS is getting lots of $$$ in the deal. Phoenix - I don't know where Phoenix is as far as a plan - do they have one? Is there even a potential ownership group yet?
I think getting a rival for Seattle would be just as, if not more, important than expanding to the southeast. Portland would fit that bill and balance east and west if we are still in conferences. Phoenix and Vegas would fit the west coast part of the equation. Atlanta is inevitable, but I think the league needs more media penetration before heading to the area.
Is anyone at all concerned at the prospect of adding SIX teams in a four-year period to go from 12 to 18? Where are all these extra players going to come from, especially given the fact that most squads could use a little more depth already?
Minneapolis, Portland or Vancouver, even though I'd personally prefer Atlanta or a FL team. I can see this: 08: San Jose -> 14 teams 09: Stl, Philly -> 16 teams 10: Seattle, *** -> 18 teams
Is it any different than adding 12 teams between 1996-1998? Additional foreign players were allowed then to allow the market time to catch up talent wise. I don't think there is anything to worry about.