Well don't forget, RFK, especially the way the lower bowl is designed, traps in noise. It creates a great atmosphere. If you had that same crowd, and put them at Gillette, the atmosphere woudl have been average. Why? Simply because Gillette is a wind tunnel, it is spread out so much the crowd gets lost.
Crusio, you're spot on with the fans being the main reason. However, 80K at Arrowhead is alot different than 50K at RFK. I've been to games at both, and just from a size/seating slope standpoint, RFK is muuuch better for soccer. Plus, having supporters groups in the center instead of stuck in the corner where not even TV cameras can see them probably helps as well.
I agree with you guys that claim it would be different in the stadiums bigger than RFK. My point was just to point out that building fan bases for these teams is as important as building stadiums. United has a nice core group of 'real' fans, most teams in the league are not as lucky. Dallas next season, will be a good test case. Will simply building a stadium thats specific to soccer be enough to generate and keep a loyal fan base? I guess we shall see.
I think a lot of it will have to do with the design of the SSS. Architects can certainly add features that will increase the trappling of noise. Roofs are probaly a major factor in holding sound in and letting it reverberate. If an when DC ever gets an SSS (I'll believe it when I see it), I certainly hope there are roofs and that the entire bowl is enclosed to prevent sound from escaping easily. And further, I hope they deliberately make the stands across from the benches bounce-able, as they are today. I've never been to Columbus or the HDC. How are they for sound?
But it should be easier to build a fan base when you have your own stadium, in theory. You have your own home, you control all the ancillary issues that make the fan experience better, you can get better dates to make your fans happy, etc., etc. I understand your point, but DC is unique among the teams that play in bigger houses for a variety of reasons. Getting a real home will make it easier to get people involved in all cities.
I agree with this. The stadiums are integral to building this league. But let us not fool ourselves, alone, they are not the answer to MLS's problems. For example, if you take the crowd that METRO draws and drop them into a soccer specific stadium, the experience will only be marginally better. Why? Cause the fan base is simply awful. They just are. Look around the league and you will see similar situations in many other MLS cities. I hope you are right and these new stadiums will bring more of the DC breed of passionate fan rather than the elongated horn blowing METRO fan. DC fans made Saturday night a genuine soccer experience, not just an evening out watching soccer.
You're right, the enthusiasm of core 'real' fans varies from venue to venue. Some markets may be losing core fans, others may be gaining. But one seemingly good sign in regard to "fanbase building" is that, I believe for the first time in MLS history - including year one - only one team finished with an average attendance under 12k (Dallas). While the 12k turning out everywhere but Dallas may not be "hardcore" fans, it's good that this many fans are turning out in every market. Of course, comparing median attendance to years past would probably be a better way to look at consistent fan support, but I don't have time to look at those numbers. If Dallas tops 12k average next year and every team is over that plateau, I'll feel good about the job MLS is doing in bringing 'real' fans in as far as loyalty goes - MLS will be getting butts in seats in every market.