Out of those 3 mentioned only St. louis to me seems the only viable option. St. Louis' biggest rival would most definetly be Chicago. St. Louis and KC would be more a simple bragging rights like it currently is in baseball and football.
Do the Bears and Rams have a big rivalry? Not really. White Sox/ Cardinals? Nah. Only half of Chicago that see St. Louis as a "must have rival". Saying a rivlary between Chicago and St. Louis will happen because of the Cubs/Cards rivalry is like saying a Minnasota team and a Cleveland team would have to be rivals because of the Twins/Indians rivalry. Would that happen? Probably not. It all depends on how they're placed. How many times they play a season and how close the teams are in talent will probably decide the clubs rival.
But you see i'm from st. louis metro area and I know how the fans of the sports here work. The Rams bears may not have this big rivalry but the chiefs rams have even less of one. And the reason the White Sox Cardinals don't have a rivalry is for obvious reasons, they are not in the same leage in baseball.. Sports fans from St. Louis will almost always choose to target the chicago team as the one they are gunning for to get the best of each season. It is not just the "sports" rivalries. It's a city mindset between St. Louis and Chicago. It has been this way for years no matter what the sport or what the contest. St. Louis looks at Kansas City as the little brother and nothing more. The only thing you will get out of a STL/KC rivalry is a small bragging rights now lets go back to trying to kill off the Chicago team mentality. Even though the national papers may not show any rivalry between the Rams and bears, when those two teams meet the fans have the sense of the city rivalry. When the Rams play KC it's more of a "ha ha we won now lets go back to our daily lives" type of thing. KC media might hype it up as a big rivalry but not the st. louis media or fans. There was also a huge Cardinals (football)/Bears rivalry when the big Red were in st. louis all those years. But you need to start looking at the rivalry between St. Louis and Chicago as not a simple "sports" rivalry. We have a city rivalry regardless of sports teams being invovled.
MLS would not be supported in Saint Louis. Most people are only interested in soccer if their kids are playing and have a chance at a college scholarship. After that, they are done with the sport. Plus, Saint Louis fans won't pay to see soccer. They think the amateur stuff is better than the pros.
Interesting, Stone and Wynalda had a short conversation about St. Louis and said that MLS has met with STL officials recently.
Riverhounds moved to Falconi Field instead of the High School fields they have been playing at. They share a Baseball field with the Washington Wildthings of the Frontier League. I'm a season ticket holder and would love MLS but I doubt that will happen.
Cincinnati might as well get an MLS team someday. all the rest of their sports suck. i know; I used to live there.
exactly. those things wouldn't even happen unless there was a potential soccer fan base in St. Louis.
I have family from western Pennsylvania so I have been to Pittsburgh many times. In fact, I was born in New Castle so I think my opinion might be worth something. I don't think an MLS franchise in Pittsburgh could work at all. First of all, even though the Pirates haven't had a winning season in I don't know how many seasons, they continue to draw decent crowds and everyone within the city recognizes them. In such a small market with competition, I couldn't see more than several thousand people going to the games. Second, Pittsburgh offers nothing in a business sense. The city itself is slowing dying off economically and I think it would hurt the league's reputation. I couldn't see Pittsburgh drawing well on television either. Overall, Pittsburgh would not be a wise market to explore. Ultimately I think it would be a failure.
Well Pittsburgh doesn't have a Soccer club now since the Pittsburgh Riverhounds FC really play 1 hour south of Pittsburgh in Washington PA.
Were they talking with St. Loius city officials? In that case, did they learn nothing from the San Antonio experience? I'm sure they have. I didn't really hear what Stone and Waldo were talking about, just heard them mention St. Louis. I'd rather them not mention anything until there's a possible investor.
There's a difference between talking and agreeing to a lease. I see no harm in asking St Louis officials if they want to study building a SSS. That's probably where discussions with SA should've stopped.
What?!! Where is your evidence? Your comments are absurb. You have no clue as to what you are talking about.
Oh really? St. Louis fans won't pay to see soccer? Then please kindly explain this: http://www.stlsteamers.com/ And this: http://www.sover.net/~spectrum/saintlouis.html And this: http://slubillikens.collegesports.com/sports/m-soccer/stlo-m-soccer-body.html And this: http://www.acgrassi.net etc. Welcome to the boards and all, but saying something like "I don't think St. Louis fans will support MLS, because of X, Y, and Z," would go over a lot better than "St. Louis fans will not pay to see soccer. MLS will not be supported." You know not whereof you speak.
St. Louis has been discussed recently on other threads and provided they come up with an I/O it is entirely feasible. There are a few options in terms of expansion of current small venues in the area. Cincinnati blows...take it from someone who lived there. If MLS is going to expand in Ohio, it should be Cleveland. With the Force and Crunch (indoor) they already have some growing interest in soccer over the years, the fans are better, and they are more likely to come up with the land and an I/O. Pittsburgh? I only have this to say, UGH. First of all, the crew already stole their black and yellow theme that every team in the city must have, so they are screwed....next.
Though I'd love to have an MLS team in my backyard, I don't think Pittsburgh is a very good expansion candidate. Don't get me wrong, I love this city's passion for sports. When teams here are winning, there aren't any better fans in the country and unlike most MLS frachises, I think you would actually see a bump in attendence if a team here was playing well. Despite Western PA not being known as a soccer hot bed, I think the fans would still be there. Heck, most people would probably show up just because it gives them another excuse to get drunk in the middle of the afternoon. The problem with MLS in Pittsburgh besides the Crew already having our colors is the almighty dollar. At this point, I don't think we have a venue suitable for an MLS team. Heinz Field is too big and has field turf. If a new stadium were to be built here, it would have to be privately financed. The city government is still struggling to stay out of bankruptcy from the costs to open PNC Park and the House that Ketchup Built and needs to construct a new arena if it hopes to save the Pens. I can't see an investor emerging that would be willing to foot the bill to develop a plan that would satisfy MLS's prerequites for expansion. Though this is a little off topic, I do think it's time the US national team considered Heinz Field for a qualifier or a friendly. Pittsburgh might be the only place in America where one can take in a game with an unquestionably pro-Yanks crowd even against Mexico and enjoy a full potency beer while doing so. Steve