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

This might just be a cultural bias kind of a thing, but it seems that MLS teams are better supported in towns where they are the 2nd or 3rd professional franchise (Portland, Seattle, Vancouver), as opposed to the 4th or 5th (New England, San Jose, Dallas, Chicago, Colorado)

 

Well, the NBA is not what we're talking about here. Obviously the Spurs have received tremendous support (didn't always used to be the case), but MLS is not the NBA.
Because an NBA team does great just doesn't guarantee a thing for an MLS team in the same market.
I'd just have a hard time believing MLS is looking at San Antonio anytime soon.

 

Hey you asked for a team that succeeded in the San Antonio. So i gave you one.

 

No I didn't ask for that.

 

Well i must of misread it. My mistake.

I guess we won't know til April.

 

I have no idea who Rebecca Black is ... but you do.

It isn't the same time frame and the club exists in a completely different "soccer reality" than the current league, but it was a just example of why it wouldn't be a good idea ? No.

Wait, so San Antonio failed because the CFL in America experiment failed ? You do realize that the San Antonio Texans were the last American CFL team left and the owner decided to fold because there was absolutely zero point in being the only American club in the CFL. The club was 12-6 and averaged 16K (Only Baltimore drew more than 20K, and Birmingham only drew 1K more than SA). The club was actually moved from Sacramento to San Antonio, interesting.

WFL - the league folded, not the Wings. Averaged 15K. The club was actually bought and moved from Florida to San Antonio ... huh, once again interesting.

WLAF - the league ceased operations and abandoned play in North America. The club averaged 15K.

USFL - Manges lost his oil fortunes. The team itself was actually competitive on a crap budget in the overly ridiculous waged league. Manges though, had no recourse but to let the team collapse.

IHL - ha ... the Iguanas were already here and there was never hope for the Dragons (the Iguanas only folded because the Spurs ownership and Florida Panthers ownership teamed up to get behind a team - the Rampage - in the new AHL development league)

^ What part of any of that is a failure on the part of San Antonio ?

Arena - I'll give you that one. The Force were terrible. Of course, they folded in an era where the league folded teams left and right.


The Rampage and Spurs are certainly not failures by the way. So "each and every time" isn't correct.

X-Files conspiracy on the politics ? Way to toss off something you know nothing about simply because you know nothing about it. http://www.oursportscentral.com/services/releases/?id=3174355 Educate yourself on these "X Files conspiracy theories" .... Google the phrase "polotics keeps MLS out of San Antonio" and see what you find -> http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17946

If you could read a few posts earlier I gave indicators as to why the city is an attractive candidate. Toss in the Star Soccer Complex and the fact that we have essentially "grass rooted" a NASL expansion side for next year and the cities commitment and interest in soccer is clearly there.

2005 San Antonio was seriously considered. Politics ruined it (see above).

But wait wait wait wait a damned minute. You can use defunct leagues, nich sports, everything but soccer to try and showcase why San Antonio won't work for the MLS but someone can't use a different sport to prove that it can ?

^Tell me how those maths work buddy.

Garber has also directly mentioned the growth of soccer in San Antonio when asked about candidate cities.

 

Also the AHL's San Antonio Rampage are in the top third of attendance for that league, despite not making the playoffs, and despite the AT&T center being a rare and abominable basketball-first building with terrible sightlines for hockey.

Union are Philly's 4th team after the Phillies, Eagles, and Flyers.
Toronto has the Maple Leafs, Blue Jays, and Raptors.
Houston has the Astros, Texans, and Rockets.

I think it has more to do with the well-supported teams mostly being new, and not having suffered the growing pains of the first decade.

 

Philthy are a 5 sport town with the Sixers. Toronto, too, with the Argos.

There are anomalies, but is there any doubt that the Sounders wouldn't be as successful if the SuperSonics hadn't left town?

 

yup, Phillies > Eagles > Flyers > Union > Sixers.

 

Congrats on your visit to Wikipedia. Way to go. Let's look at it conversely-all of these FAILED leagues go to places like San Antonio because it's not a major market. A decent sized market? OK, I'll give ya that, but then let's toss in Memphis, Birmingham, Charlotte (bigger) and many more.
MLS is trying to avoid such locales like the plague and have avoided Rochester for that reason.
And please stop using the Spurs-we are not talking about the Big 4 sports teams here and the only reason the NBA has a team in San Antonio was the ABA merger. They were not an expansion team and had to be accepted into the league.
Look, go ahead and rant and rave about San Antonio-I'd be all for a team there if they can make it work.
My whole point is-I don't see it working and you've done nothing to change my mind.
Go Gunslingers!

 

Wow, don't know what universe your on. The Eagles & Flyers WILL ALWAYS, ALWAYS be in front of the Phillies. The only reason you have them listed on top is cause were WINNING.

 

I don't need Wikipedia ... I'm from Texas, and specifically South Texas. I know the history of things and know what has actually happened here. I don't need to bend things to fit my view point. But hey, whatever you need to make yourself feel better about getting fed FACTS that make you look a little less smart.

I notice there was no mention of the "X-Files political conspiracies" this go round ? What happened ? I have a guess.

Never said SA was a major market, but it's as big as one that is already in the league (CLB), is as close of a drive or closer to another one of its size than many of the FC Dallas fans are to PHP. That entire area is privy to only ONE major sports team. It would bring in a rather large chunk of people not currently served by the league. The SA-Austin area has damn near 3 million people with one end growing at over a 20% rate and the other at over a 35% rate. You have any other area encompassed by an hour drive that can boast that ?

No, Rochester is not avoided only because of that.

Why can't I use the Spurs/NBA as proof of success ? Who cares if it was a merger ? The FACT, is that they have thrived and been successful. You used Arena football, the USFL, the WLAF, the WFL, the CFL, and the IHL ... none of which are the MLS. How the blue hell can you point to different sports/leagues and point to failure, but I can't do the same and point to success ? It works both ways buck-o.

You also didn't answer the question of how those leagues failing was a product of San Antonio ...

I notice that you completely ignored the fact that in 2005 SA was very, very close to an MLS franchise ... and that there is a clear focal point of interest for soccer with an organically grown supporters group (check my avatar) that led directly to a NASL team, and the Star Soccer Complex (how many other "candidates" have something like that ?) ...

You've actually done nothing to show me why SA wouldn't work. Your entire premise was of a bunch of failed leagues in other sports, which are the exact same as me mentioning the Spurs .... which you discounted. Soooo that leaves you with nothing at the moment.

 

yeah I was mostly talking about right now. Still, even with the Flyers being my favorite team, I don't think they're really in front of the Phillies. I think hockey is bigger than most people realise, but it still has it's talk radio haters (cough, Mike Missanelli and his "30k ultra-rich flyers fans" conspiracy theory, cough), and ESPN ignorance to overcome.

Really, the Phillies lack of popularity came down to the fact that they basically didn't try for almost 20 years, except for the fluke in 93, and had a legacy of cheapskate disinterested ownership. Until a few years ago, it was pretty clearly Eagles > Flyers > Phillies > Sixers, and you could have even argued the Phantoms, Wings, or Soul were in 4th place. But at least we agree that no one cares about the sixers.

 

Hey-the Flyers are very popular, but you are insane if you think they're more popular than the Phillies who have ratings 5 times that of the Flyers and have sold out 179 straight games of 45,000+.
The Phils are almost as big as the Eagles and if Andy Reid keeps his crap up, watch that change.

 

You are correct. The Phillies are WAY ahead of the Flyers and will continue to be for quite some time. There was a bit of time where the Phillies were brutal and the Flyers looked to be more popular, but as soon as the Phillies show any life the Flyers get bumped down a peg.

Also, over the past several years, interest in the Flyers has been waning. I write this as a big Flyers fan, the Flyers have a very vocal and passionate fan base, but it's definitely a smaller and tighter group. You're either a big Flyers fan or you're not a fan at all. We'll get the bandwagon fans, for sure, but they don't often stick around for long.

 

Doesn't seem to be an issue in the PNW ... area covered is very comparable and the PNW serves a total of 7.6m in the metro areas of the three clubs while the Texas clubs would serve 13.6 million. The Texas clubs also bleed into more areas/markets than the PNW clubs.

Ditto the I-95 corridor (although it serves an insanely high number of people).

If they can have three clubs in as condensed of an area with less people and less bleeding of the product, why can't Texas ?

If SA were to show the desire and get the bid together, what do FCD and Hou have to do with anything ?

 

I don't know i guess it just depends who can write bigger check while meeting all the other criteria.

 

Really.