The Rhinos are starting their tenth season. Alexi played some friendlies at Frontier and really liked the atmosphere. Greg played for the MLS's Tampa Bay Mutiny when the Rhinos won a 4-3 come from behind in the U.S. Open Cup (US's version of the FA Cup) in 1996. I was not there, but I've seen some of the footage and it was absolutely insane scene for a place as buttoned down as Rochester. Unlike MLS, the Rhinos play in a stadium that actually has a possiblity of actually selling out. Despite being in a baseball stadium, there's an electricity there when the place is full. That atmosphere coupled with the fact that the Rhinos have played in two U.S. Open Cup finals, won 1 Lamar Hunt Cup (defeated 4 or 5 MLS teams on the way), made it to five A-League finals and won three of them. I think Rochester has carved out a unique space in the hearts of fans who follow or are aware of American soccer. Keep in mind that Rochester have five things going for it as a soccer hotbed. Lots of second generation immigrants who played soccer in the 50s, 60s and 70s. A high educated workforce (soccer was really introduced in American colleges as a participation sport). Rochester had an NASL team called the Lancers who played some really good soccer in the 70s. Competitive club and select team soccer for the youth have been active for more than 25 years. Finally, The Rochest District Soccer League is the oldest continuous soccer league in the United States and has been in existence since 1913. Rochester has the fans, a new stadium and a savvy owner/operator with more brains than money. MLS has played Rochester as a bargaining chip several times when negotiating expansion. I think our best opportunity would be to take over the KC Wizards or the SJ Earthquakes.
It seems to me that if MLS views Rochester as a satisfactory market, it would be wise to make some kind of commitment to Rochester. I'm thinking MLS would commit to an expansion franchise by 2008/9 (assuming a certain amount of financial backing from the Rochester owners). This is similar to the option they gave the guy in Cleveland. This way, MLS could engage Rochester in the 2007 expansion, but still prioritize adding larger market teams if they determine that is the priority. They can also dance w/ Rochester re: possible relocations. But this can happen w/ Rochester knowing that, if all else fails, they eventually get a franchise. Otherwise, I could MLS pissing off ownership to the point where they can't do business down the road.
I would hope that the Rochester Rhinos gets promoted to MLS, not the Rochester ownership group getting an expansion team.
Surely with the record outlined by bleacherbutt 'you wouldn't believe how close that is to my surname' and the strong soccer tradition in the area MLS would welcome Rochester into the league. For a start there's the ready made audience, with the new stadium aswell they would surely be able to guarentee big crowds by MLS standards, that must be a major plus for those who run the league. Why do you believe MLS wouldn't welcome the club?
I think that the problem is that MLS teams are owned by deep pocketed owners willing to lose money for a while in the hopes that the future will be highly profitable. The Rhinos are one of the few soccer organizations in the nation that are making a profit and that profit will increase with the opening of the new SSS, PAETEC PARK. The Rhinos owners are content to bide their time for the chance at an existing franchise rather than pay big expansion fees. They are in a postition to pay the dollars to finance a quality team that will shame many MLS teams in future meetings and US Open Cup tournaments. The talent of the US 1st division is not that far behind MLS and it keeps getting better as teams try to keep up with Rochester and Montreal.
So does the club still have plans to install a FieldTurf pitch at PAETEC Park instead of natural grass? Or has that idea changed?
The ownership has made one decision. No natural turf. The growing season is too short and there will be too many other activities to allow the pitch to recover. They have not decided on which type of new gen turf they are going to use. My personal favorite would be to use a hybrid plastic/grass like they have at Invesco.
Dunfirmline Athletic in Scotland have had field turf for the past couple of years. I saw them play Celtic on it in a T.V. match a few weeks ago and if I didn't know better I'd say it was natural grass, the ball seemed to behave as it would on grass and players looked to be going into sliding tackles in the normal way. This is a major improvement over the plastic carpets used at places like Q.P.R. and Luton in the eighties which were like lino on a wooden floor, I dare say a lot of the N.A.S.L. pitches were the same. So yes, a modern artificial pitch sounds good to me.
Do they think that buying an existing team will be cheaper than paying the $10 million or so that an MLS expansion team would cost? Let me know when that starts happening, because the trend the last several years has been in the exact opposite direction. The gap between MLS and the A-League (or whatever it's being called this week) is widening, not narrowing. And the US Open Cup? Since the Rhinos won the Open Cup in 1999, MLS teams have gone 36-10 against A-League opposition. And the Rhinos? 2000: Lost to DC United (Worst team in MLS in 2000) 3-0 in the 3rd round 2001: Lost to Hershey 1-0 in the 2nd round 2002: Lost to Kansas City (8th out of 10 in MLS in 2002) 3-2 (OT) at Frontier Field in the 3rd round 2003: Lost to New England (3rd out of 10 in MLS in 2003) 2-1 at Ludlow, MA in the 4th round 2004: Beat New England (9th out of 10 in MLS in 2004) in PKs at Ludlow, MA in the 4th round, lost to Charleston 1-0 at Frontier Field in the quarterfinals. That PK win over New England in 2004 was the only Open Cup win that Rochester has over an MLS side in the past five years. If Rochester stays in the USL, they will be a big fish in a little pond. But that pond isn't going to get any bigger. It will always be "the minor leagues," and anyone who tells you otherwise is just plain wrong. There is one path to big-time soccer in the United States and that path is Major League Soccer.
You're right that MLS is stronger overall right now. However that could all change if 5 or 6 D-1 owners got together and decided to put more money into salaries. The Sounders are around 160K right now. If they doubled it they might improve by 20%, if this happened in the other 5/6 teams the level of competition would improve (in theory). Perhaps this would apeal to maverick owners who don't like the single entity. You would be in the position to pay players more than the MLS minimum. Having done htis and lets say the D-1 tems won 3/4 of their games with MLS and put the 2 finalists into the open cup it would create a very interesting scenario.
you double it and you're still 320k vs. 1.8 million. Very few regular players make the minimum in MLS. It's mostly rookies and reserves.
Will PAETEC Park be shared with any other Rochester sports team? I think I remember hearing something about lacrosse? Hopefully, there will not be lines on the field for more than one sport at a time.
Here's my current understanding. Soccer markings will be permanent. Lacrosse markings should be temporary (they only have six regular season dates per year.)
FWIW, Aalesunds FK in Norway (recently-promoted club) is just finishing up their new stadium (13,000 seats or so) which will feature a synthetic surface:
Very nice looking football stadium. I guess it makes sense using the artificial surface there since there is a very long winter season. It's just not my favourite playing surface.
Oh, so artificial is OK in Norway and not in Rochester? How long do you think the winter lasts in Rochester? I am sure that it is not too different than coastal Norway. Coastal Norway may even be milder due to the Atlantic current. Norway probably has even shorter days during the winter than we do. Rochester has been the snowiest metro area in the country twice while I have live here (10 years). Snowfall accumulations in Rochester can start in late September and run through Mother's Day in May. With that bit of enlightenment, I am sure you can understand the reasons why Rochester is looking at artificial surfaces.
The cost of operations with field turf is going to be less in Rochester. I think it's ok for now if it helps with profitability of the team. That doesn't mean they couldn't change to grass down the road....right? I would hope that if they move the MLS, expand the stadium and are a profitable club, that we could see a change in 5 years.
They could probably have a good grass field in Rochester. Mind you, it would take more time, effort, care, and money than having a good grass field in, say, Miami, but it theoretically can be done. And if Rhinos management is unable to commit those sorts of resources towards having a good grass field, then FieldTurf is probably a better choice than a crappy natural field.
Well, if Rhinos management is unable to commite those sorts of resources, then....well....NOT HAVING A TEAM is better than having one.
I'm no turf expert but it has seemed to me living in a tropical region of the world, in a dry deseret, and in the Mid-west that having a good turf field is easier up north than in places like Miami or L.A. It just sucks before it gets warm. My two cents.