That's a great crowd for a US Open Cup game. The more I hear out of Rochester, the more I'm convinced they should get a team. Let's hope they can pony up the money. MLS could use a solid franchise like the Rhinos. TV market be damned.....
It was the loudest crowd I have ever heard in Frontier Field. The atmosphere was much more intense then anyother MLS game I have ever seen. 11,121 was a great crowd for a weekday. Rochester obviously deserves MLS but we don't need the MLS anytime soon. I would have to say the MLS needs us. With the fan bases that some of the MLS teams have I am suprised more teams didn't go under. Great game yesterday. Rochester soccer fans are #1. GO RHINOS and good luck Chicago in the cup.
The Rhinos outdrew all three other USOC matches last night COMBINED!!!! LA @ SJ - 5,134 http://la.galaxy.mlsnet.com/MLS/new...t=.jsp&team=lag FC Dallas @ DC - 4258 http://dcunited.mlsnet.com/MLS/news...t=.jsp&team=dcu Minnesota @ KC - 1551 http://www.mnthunder.com/news/Displ...NewsItemId=1067 That's a grand total of 10,943 versus 11,121 at FSS last night.
JB, keep in mind that the counter was set at ZERO for this match. It was not a part of the season tix or the Kick Packs offerings. Rochester is proportionally the best drawing professional market for soccer the country when you use the ratio of MSA size to soccer crowd size.
Rochester's got a team, and a fine one, too. Nobody there seems to think less of them for playing in USL 1. It would seem MLS needs them more than they need MLS. Perhaps MLS should make the Rhinos an offer they can't refuse.
DC's and KC's attendances last night were both greater than the official capacity of their respective venues. I'm in no way opposed to Rochester in MLS, but MLS needs interested owners with sufficient financial backing more than it needs any one city.
Rochester fans make me a Eurosnob swell with pride at the way they support their team. Question: would they have sold as many tickets if they weren't playing a MLS team. Would they sold as many seats if they played....Charleston in the USOC? Seems to me the fans are craving top level action and why not.
In case you are wondering about the ratio. 1 out of 99 people in the Rochester MSA were at that game last night. This ratio has run as high as 1 person out of 81 people for championship and USWNT matches.
11,000 to something considered a premium event because it was against MLS competition which they will play once a year. Open Cup being the biggest competition they are in...but would we all be celebrating another city with 10,000 average attendance entering MLS? COuld they keep up an average attendance of over 15k for 16 MLS games a year? I doubt it.
All signs point to Rochester being a great MLS club. I don't know why they can't get the deal done. It seems so simple. Great job drawing a nice crowd for the Open Cup. I don't think MLS teams market these at all.
Considering that the Washington Nationals were using DC United's home stadium last night, what's your brilliant suggestion?
Kansas City played a game at a venue that doesn't even officially hold 1,551? Damn. I'm glad their out then.
Who know's for sure, but they do draw almost 10,000 per game in a lower division, against some obscure teams (city wise). That's much better than KC or San Jose...and right on par with everyone else.....and they come to the fold with a SSS already in place. Nice deal all the way around. IMO, this is a no brainer.
DC did it perfectly, IMO. They probably broke even or better drawing 4.2k in the Maryland SoccerPlex. They'd have lost money even drawing 10,000 in RFK.
I continue to be shocked why people are so stumped here. Rochester currently plays in a stadium built for baseball, with terrible views, and that only seats about 12k people. Their new stadium is nice, and designed for soccer, but will only seat 13k and will have no pressbox or luxury suites unless additional funding is pumped into it-- --which it might well be, but still the point remains that it's fruitless to even hash out all this 'who 'deserves' what" stuff until an MLS compliant stadium comes around. Better still, we can watch what happens to attendance once they play in that stadium, as the stadium should both increase the fan experience (better views) and the revenues with which the current owners (and there's a questiona as to their resources, but even that's crossing the bridge before you get to it at this point) can sell the team.
I think these 20K stadiums are, IMO, over the top for where the league is right now. Sure, the 13K stadium shouldn't (and wouldn't) get an MLS Cup or anything, but I'm not sure why a SSS with 13K in seating is a bad thing?! In five years, attendence and demand permitting, you upgrade it then. I'm not sure why that approach is such a foreign or unwelcome concept. As for the owners resources as so on, those are good points, but I'm sure those issues could be worked out if the league really viewed Rochester as a top choice for expansion.
ElJefe already covered DC, and I think most people giving management lessons would tell a club to choose the option that at the very least will cost them less, if not making money. Even if the Wizards drew over 11,000 at Arrowhead, I suspect they would lose more money than playing at Park University. And yes, Julian Field at Park University's official capacity is 1,500. The preference is to play at Blue Valley Sports Complex which seats 2,500 and can hold many more, but the field was already booked. They were scheduled to play there had they won as well as SJ winning.
SJ drew over 12K last yr on average, maybe even 13K. This year they are currently a little above 10K, but they will surpass that easily (a lot of big youth soccer league ticket sales, and the Derby will be packed on Saturday) and finish above 12K again.
Just curious, but how many doubleheaders are figured into those attendence figures? Not trying to be a smart ass, but it's a well known fact how "padded" MLS attendence figures are when they throw in all the double header games, where most people (educated guess only) are there for the non-MLS game first, and sometimes stick around for the MLS game.
As far as San Jose is concerned, none are. I think that the last doubleheader that they had was in '99, I think.
Just for the sake of passing along correct information. Phase 1 will have 12,500 permanent seats and 3,500 temp seats for a total of 16,000 (which, capacity wise, seems acceptable). Phase II, which is supposedly a formality (we'll see), will bring it over 20,000 for next season. In terms of your main point, I agree a soccer stadium is needed. Considering MLS was close to playing in FF several years back with a promise of a new stadium the following season (the public money not coming through at the time killed the deal), I think they'd deal with PTP after phase I if there was a need. In the end, I don't dispute that it comes down to dollars and cents. I almost guarantee that the difference between phase I and II won't be a deal breaker, cash will be the difference.
Ah another favorite topic. The reason Rochester draws better than MLS sides for US Open games is not because they have such great fan support relatively but because US Open games are relatively more important to Rochester fans. It's Rochester's chance to show their stuff against more talented opposition. For MLS teams, while the Open Cup is growing in emphasis, it is still second fiddle to MLS games. Looking at league numbers, Rochester comes in at less than the current MLS average of nearly 15,000. Both new expansion teams are averaging over 18,000 fans per game. MLS wants expansion sides that will increase its attendance average, not decrease it -- well at least there is no reason to beg for a side that will lower your attendance averages. If Rochester can put together some money and a solid plan, then it has a shot. If not, not.
Salt Lake's numbers, while good, are inflated from the USMNT doubleheader. Chivas' numbers are inflated because of the Galaxy games. And you're assuming that Rochester fans won't come out in greater numbers by moving up to MLS. What did the Utah Blitzz draw? I'm thinking not as well as RRR does now.
Let me lay this out a little better for you. It's their second US Open Cup game and fourth game versus MLS competition this season. The Rhinos play in a baseball stadium, and manage similar crowds much of the year. Ticket prices are not much below the MLS level during the season. So, despite having an inferior facility, a lower league product, and a lack of seating, the Rhinos compete with the lower end MLS teams at the gates. And, this is a negative? So, what other cities have drawn around 10K a game for a decade that might enter? Or, even better, name one that is averaging 15K that is a possible expansion team? Yup, there are no teams. So perhaps the MLS should not expand. In fact, many of the MLS cities shouldn't be in existance because of their much, much smaller attendance figures in the USL before MLS. But, generally speaking, you never expect lower league teams to compete with any "major league" teams at the gates. Such an occurence is extraordinary. I continue to not understand why Rochester is held to a difference standard. I'm not arguing that a lack of capital from the owners may prevent expansion. I'm fully aware of that reality. But my gosh, Rochester has nothing left to prove at the gates. I don't see how anyone can spin that aspect into a negative.