The "Don" now said 22 teams by 2020..

Orlando is such a joke. St. Louis needs to have a team. If all the PacNorthwest teams were brought in because of their history, there is no reason St. Louis shouldn't have a team in 2013. 3 areas with the richest soccer history in the country, Seattle/Portland/Vancouver, Newark/Harrison/Kearny, St. Louis, (and Fall River). So let's get this done, no?

 

Do you have a 75 million Dollar check?

 

Of course there is a reason, there's no owner and no stadium. Fix those issues and they get a team.

 

The Pacific Northwest teams were not brought in because of any soccer history.

St. Louis will come into the league when it has a wealthy owner, a stadium plan and a viable plan for getting butts in seats.

 

If history is a yardstick, why are Tulsa, Minnesota, Rochester, and San Diego not mentioned?

 

Um...

1967-77 NASL

 

Um, yeah, they did; St. Louis Stars, 1967 (NPSL), 1968-77 (NASL). They never broke 10,000 in average attendance (several sources, including Dave Litterer's Soccer Archives, and Kenn Tommasch's (sp?) page), and were outdrawn by the Atlanta Chiefs/Apollos four out of the eight years both cities had teams. They were pacesetters for there time, though, as they used a predominantly American roster throughout their existence.

 

Beat me to the punch. Kudos to ya.

 

Link? Not challenging you; I just want to read it myself.

 

- Minneasota
- Atlanta
- New York
- Detroit

St Louis, San Diego, Orlando, and San Antonio are risky but could all be a bit below avg (where avg = Houston)

 

Orlando sure knows how to draw a crowd. Casey Anthony could sell out the Citrus Bowl.

 

The only city that MLS has taken seriously for expansion right now is NY2. And even that has more question marks than the Riddler's costume. Other than that, no other city - especially Orlando - has been taken seriously by the league, other than lip service by the Don. To suggest otherwise makes you a moron (hello SteveUSSF_ref8).

 

I'm sure at least part of the reason that St. Louis is on the Don's radar is because the midwest is lacking in rivalries. The Sporting ownership (OnGoal) has most likely discussed this with the Don as I know they would love to have a natural rival.

I for one would love to see St. Louis get a team. I didn't like the previous plan for the stadium to be in Illinois. I think KC/St. Louis/Chicago would make a nice Midwestern rivalry much like the pacNW and I-95 rivalries.

 

Why would San Antonio be risky ?

 

i am pro san antonio, minneasota, and atlanta (because of location)

but the don probably looks at a bunch of things like tv markets and wealth growth of city and registered soccer players. ill put it ahead of sacramento and san diego for sure.

 

TV Market - 37th, but completely untapped and shared only with one other pro team. Bleeds into Austin market which has no pro teams in any major sport. Columbus is 35th, for comparison.

Wealth - San Antonio has one of the 100 wealthiest zip codes in the United States (and ahead of anything in Dallas, for perspective) http://wealth.mongabay.com/tables/100_income_zip_codes.html

Growth of City - San Antonio-New Braunfels Metro is 25th in the country in metro population (1hr away the Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos metro is 35th) ... and the growth is 25+% for SA metro and 37+% for Austin Metro.

Registered soccer players - no clue, looked for a while but couldn't find numbers.

 

Although it's from way back, San Antonio did terrible in the NASL averaging 4,412 and 4,794 in their 2 seasons. Again, it's now a different timeframe but I do not see San Antonio is viable in the least for MLS.

 

Their is alot of markets that failed in the old NASL that succeeded in the MLS.

Los Angeles Wolves
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Wolves

Houston Hurricane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Hurricane

 

Equating anything from the NASL to today, is a fail.

Also, San Antonio was on the cusp of the MLS but the political players changed right at the wrong time.

 

Saying things like "... is a fail" makes you sound like you listen to Rebecca Black and OMG all your kool friendz.
I already SAID it's not the same timeframe, but what proof do you offer San Antonio would ever work and is even being considered? And, I
l'll pass on your X-Files conspiracy theories about the "political players". San Antonio has failed each and every time with teams in the WFL, WLAF, USFL, Arena Football, CFL and IHL.
Again, offer some proof as to why it would work there.
I have no problems with a team going there but I don't see it being supported properly.

 

The Wolves? That was the 1960's and before the NASL was really even the NASL. has nothing to do with anything. Shit, Vanilla Fudge were still on the charts then!
Also, the L.A. Aztecs flopped as did the California Surf. Those issues stemmed from poor ownership (Elton John? Really Aztecs?) and playing in cavernous baseball stadiums.

 

As much as i dislike them The Spurs.