Reaction to Bob Wagman's article on Salt Lake MLS team?

I won't give him a hit. Sorry.

 

This thread is going to become very entertaining.

 

Bending over backward to put a negative spin on it.

 

I usually try to avoid Wagman. It was an interesting thing to read him again. As usual, stating things as fact that have been clearly contradicted, in this case by the people involved themselves.

Wagman says that Checketts picked up the slack when Seattle couldn't be ready.

I don't know about y'all, but the way I remember it, newspapers in both Seattle and SLC, and Checketts himself at the meeting, said that Checketts grabbed the expansion slot when it looked like Seattle was going to get it.

It's inventions like that that piss me off about Wagman.

In this case, it's particularly galling, because many of his points are good ones. About MLS wanting to expand to big markets, and SLC is not a big market. About how soccer at all levels still struggles to turn players into ticket-buyers. About MLS wanting to move to markets where a stadium was, at a minimum, in the works. All the questions and concerns he raises are valid ones.

Still, all the points are pretty much pointless. SLC is in. Now it's time to sit back and see what happens. Kick back and enjoy the show!

 

It's like taking a woman with a beautiful face and wonderful personality and only pointing out the cellulite in her thighs and the fact that she's had three kids.

Is Salt Lake ideal? No. Is it scraping the bottom of the barrel? No also. Salt Lake will me a good small market team that won't hurt MLS and will give it another team. I'm happy to have them.

 

True, except for the stadium one. What potential owner in his right mind (other then an existing A League owner) would start the process of building an SSS without first getting the team?? What municipality would devote a single penny to a stadium without a team first? And for all we know (and that includes Wagman) Checketts has already started the stadium process, but isn't at a point where he can announce anything yet. It is a ridiculous edict that ownerships groups need to have begun the stadium process before getting a team.....going by that NO ONE will ever get an MLS expansion franchise other then an existing A League team.

 

I didn't have much of a problem with the article. The overall message is about right: an ownership group with credibility, clout, experience and dedication, but not the market MLS has been banging down doors for. It's like the commerical: there's Hertz and then there's not exactly. There's Houston, Philly, Seattle, and then there's SLC.

Of course, SLC could end up drawing a solid 15k or better, build its stadium and be a model franchise. So who really knows. I wish them lots of luck.

 

Well, if you go off NBA standards, then SLC is not even big enough to host the NBA. Coincidentley, Utah is one of the most stable and successful franchises in the league.
Metro Salt Lake is only about 180,000. But the surrounding suburbs add up to just under 1.5 million. This is where the MLS fanbase will come from. Granted it is a small city, but per capita there are more young soccer players here than anywhere in the country. This is what Dave Checketts is banking on.

I really hope Salt Lake is successful, as well as the league as a whole.

 

Well, lets hope they are a lot more succesful at turning young rec players in to regular fans then everyone else has been.......because it hasn't exactly been a winning strategy around the league.

 

I agree.

 

What I think is funny is his talk about stadium and playing surface.

Seattle was going to play in a larger stadium, with the exact same surface...so where's the beef? (Just an interesting side note, the field manager for the Seattle Seahawks was my boss when I was working at Rice-Eccles Stadium, they hired him away from Utah)

 

The current stadium and the field turf is a bit of a downer - but it need not be permanent.

Solid darn ownership group. No problems there. These guys as much as anyone can get a stadium built. They are not much further behind the Rapids in that effort. They've got a TV network in their quiver and much USA sports expereince. Getting this group in MLS is going to be valuable.

Market size. This doesn't concern me as much as game attendance. It goes both ways. In a big market, MLS teams can get lost in the shuffle. In SLC all they have are the Jazz to compete directly with - not the NFL or MLB. That helps - they will be a big fish in what is not the smallest pond in the world. If Columbus is okay for MLS and Rochester can be considered SLC will do just fine.

Boiling all of MLS requirements down to 2 main things: it is the right ownership group in an acceptable market. This is it. The right ownership group is one who will build a stadium. There are no big cities with all of MLS prerequisites and MLS needs to and/or wants to expand to about 14 cities by the time its TV contract is up in 2006.

MLS can't wait for years for all the moons to line up - it needs to find the best situations it can and go for it. SLC is a good bet in my opinion. If not for the Fieldturf thing I am 100% satisfied with this deal. As it is I am 99% behind it. I just can't get over my aversion to fake plastic grass.

 

Salt Lake City is a nice way to balance out the conferences.

We have Columbus in the east, now they get a small town market in the west...oh wait I forgot about KC...oh man, this is coming apart, nevermind.

 

It's not fake plastic grass. It's real plastic grass.

 

I really don't know how to articulate this well, but I'll give it a poor effort.

One thing that Wagman - and others who try their hardest to put a negative spin on SLC expansion - overlooks is the unbelievable amount of pride citizens of SLC take in their community. Maybe it is because of the history of the area, maybe it has something to do with the Mormon religion. I don't know what it is, but I have never experienced anyting like it.

I'm was raised in the Portland area, and I thought through Blazermania I had an understanding of what it meant for the community to get behind a team. But through work, I happened to be in SLC during the 2000 Olympics and also during the 1998 NBA finals, when the Jazz lost to the Bulls. I've never seen anything close to the way the people of SLC got involved in those events.

I'd love for SLC's MLS franchise to have half the passion the Jazz have. These aren't warm weather fans. They'll literally bleed for their team. We need more cities like that.

Welcome aboard, SLC.

 

Nutmeg's point is great. I'd like to second that. I'm from central CA and my wife is from San Antonio, TX. We met at BYU in Provo, UT, where are living until I finish grad school. The passion of local fans here is amazing. People here have a strong regional identity, and that translates to spporting teams that represent them. They see themselves as a big-time place, and want others to do the same. While I usually associate with a specific segment of the population (other college students), the people that I do know are currently more excited about this team than anything except the Jazz. While I have been a San Jose fan, I think that this new team will be my team.

 

You know, I've been playing on field turf quite a bit this year, and it's not anything like astroturf. You don't get turf-toe, you don't get rug burns (at least not wicked ones like you used to) and it plays pretty well. Rain drains away faster, too.

At least for us rec league players, it's the best surface we play on all year. It may not be as good as RFK, but I think it's not as bad as many people seem to think it is.

I would hate the American Football lines, though.

 

welcome to the fold. I've moved from sacramento, and while I have been a San Jose Fan, it's awesome to have MLS move out here along with me. I'll be changing over, but it will be hard to root against San Jose. If they move San Jose to Houston or something, however, it will be very easy to root against them.

 

Personally, I don't get his point. Is he saying that the MLS should DELAY expansion because in his mind SLC isn't ideal? (despite a committed owner, SSS in the plans, and a sufficient market?) What was the option?

I think the point to be made about expansion is that the MLS will/should take ANYONE who fits their 3-leg criteria. Many other cities COULD put together more ideal markets/stadiums/ownership groups - but the fact is - they haven't done it. I just don't see MLS turning anyone away who is willing to put up money, a stadium, and give it a shot...

MLS needs expansion. Checketts has the nuts to bet his own cash (and because of it, I think he'll make it work).

We should be doing everything in our power to get the MLS to a 20 team league. When Seattle/Atlanta/Philly/Rochester... can put together an ownership group who can pay the bill and get a stadium in the works - I say let them in.

People can worry about the quality of play decreasing but I don't think that is really a problem. The U.S. has many good players coming out of high school and college who just don't have anywhere to go to continue their development. The fact that the U.S. can have competitive youth national teams is proof that raw talent exists. The problem is that only a handful of these guys have opportunity to continue to develop.

Good luck to SLC and good luck to the next 8 cities to follow!