Jeff Bradley wrote an article on this subject about a year ago. His premise was that MLS already has teams in the biggest 8 markets in the country(except Philly) so that covers the major league part. He then stated the next 6 expansion teams should go to places where MLS has the chance to be the only game in town. Therefore, it creates a buzz in the city,ie. Columbus. I think this makes a really good point. Why go to another major city that already has 4 or 5 other major league teams when you could go to a smaller city where you could be the only major league team. You would have maximum local media exposure from the beginning. With this reasoning, I have always supported places like Norfolk, Rochester, Tulsa, etc.
TV market areas: jwinters: You are correct! First of all: When major professional sports teams come knocking on city doors, they look at three areas: 1. OWNERSHIP 2. MARKET: (Metropolitan Area/TV Ranking) 3. FACILITIES In the area of your market, your TV rankings may not be important to a league whose bread and butter is tickets sales, concessions and parking receipts, a league which currently doesn't have a TV marketing image. MLS will continue to saturate the big markets because it wants to make a national footprint and be primed for TV; they must initially penetrate the larger markets in which MLS will not become a side show. I predict that the expansion cities will be using the approximate timetable: Smaller markets: (2005-06) 1. Oklahoma (Tulsa or Oklahoma City) 2. Rochester The addition of Rochester and Oklahoma will bring stadium fulfilling potential much like Columbus. Rochester will become an instant rival with New York-New Jersey and New England. Oklahoma will have instant rivalship with Dallas and Kansas City. Larger markets: (2007-08) 3. Philadelphia 4. Seattle 5. St. Louis 6. Houston Philadelphia is a Fab Four city; this large market is one in which MLS will still be a side-show; however a successful one. Philadelphia will strengthen the eastern rivalry one notch further. Seatte (-NHL), St. Louis (-NBA) and Houston (-NHL) are cities with 3 Fab Four franchises. Seattle will add spice to the California teams (Los Angeles and San Jose). St. Louis will be a key rival for Chicago and a new apetite to spark interest in arch rival Kansas City. Houston will become Dallas' arch rival. MLS will secure a major TV network contract like one with NBC weekend games. Success of TV will be the key. Can MLS penetrate the TV market especially with its only team competition being baseball? You bet MLS can! Baseball will hasten the fan movement in the direction of soccer. People will be looking for an alternative sport to watch. They will be sick of the strikes and the hoopla between the players and owners. Success of TV will lead to another round of expansion into larger markets. This is when TV rankings will come into play. 2009 and 2010 will see another round of franchises added like Portland, Cleveland, Phoenix, Milwaukee, Atlanta and Minnesota (Minneapolis-St. Paul). Portland will have an instant rival in Seattle. Portland is a good size market which isn't oversaturated with sports. Cleveland will become a new spark for Columbus. Milwaukee will hit it off with Chicago, Minnesota will add in spicing the regional competition of Milwaukee, Chicago, Kansas City and St. Louis. Atlanta will be the key to bringing back Tampa Bay and Miami area which could see a team in West Palm Beach (Boca Raton, Florida) and by then Jacksonville will be ready for a team. The Hampton Roads area (Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News-Hampton-Portsmouth) would definitely challenge D.C. United. Here is MLS in 2010 with expansion cities: Major League Soccer Eastern Conference Atlantic Coast Division New York-New Jersey New England D. C. United Rochester Philadelphia Great Lakes Division Columbus Chicago St. Louis Milwaukee Cleveland Minnesota Western Conference Gulf Coast Division Kansas City Dallas Colorado Oklahoma Houston Atlanta Pacific Coast Division Los Angeles San Jose Seattle Phoenix Portland
Laramie4OKC: You are right that MLS will probably expand into both large and small markets, and most likely at a 4:2 ratio. You are also right that it's unlikely that both Tulsa and OKC will get teams, which is the contention that drew me into this thread to begin with. I alluded to a New York Times article (April 2, 1995) that assessed which cities could support a Major League Baseball team--the small (metro area w/ under 1,500,000) cities that made the cut are Sacramento, Fort Worth, Indianapolis, Columbus, Orlando, Northern New Jersey, Charlotte, Hartford, Greensboro, Rochester, Central New Jersey, and Las Vegas. That's not a bad list from which to find a small market or two for MLS. Note 1: OKC had barely over one million at that time and was assessed not ready for MLB. Below average per capita income and potential for luxury suite sales were cited as reasons for this. Perhaps the situation has changed in the last seven years. Tulsa was not assessed because it has fewer than one million people. Note 2: Tampa and Miami were judged to be unable to support an MLB team. We saw how they responded to MLS. Note 3: Other small markets that were judged not ready for MLB include Norfolk, Milwaukee, San Antonio and Memphis.
In isolation, those Tulsa NASL attendance figures don't look so bad. But a little context might be useful: ----------------------------------------- NASL Attendance Tampa v. Tulsa: 1978-1984 . . 1978 Tulsa Roughnecks 30 15 15 49 46 132 .500 11,207 Tampa Bay Rowdies 30 18 12 63 48 165 .600 18,123 . . 1979 Tulsa Roughnecks 30 14 16 61 56 139 .466 16,425 Tampa Bay Rowdies 30 19 11 67 46 169 .633 27,650 . . 1980 Tulsa Roughnecks 32 15 17 56 62 139 .468 19,787 Tampa Bay Rowdies 32 19 13 61 50 168 .593 28,435 . . 1981 Tulsa Roughnecks 32 17 15 60 49 154 .531 17,188 Tampa Bay Rowdies 32 15 17 63 64 139 .468 22,532 . . 1982 Tulsa Roughnecks 32 16 16 69 57 151 .500 14,469 Tampa Bay Rowdies 32 12 20 47 77 112 .375 18,507 . . 1983 Tulsa Roughnecks 30 17 13 56 49 145 .566 12,415 Tampa Bay Rowdies 30 7 23 48 87 83 .233 11,172 . . 1984 Tampa Bay Rowdies 24 9 15 43 61 87 .375 10,932 Tulsa Roughnecks 24 10 14 42 46 98 .416 7,797 -------------------------------------------------------------- So, are NASL attendance figures useful for determining MLS success? Or not?
Keep in mind that back in the day of the Rowdies, the Buccaneers were the only other pro team in Tampa. By the time the Mutiny arrived in 1996, Tampa Bay had an NHL team as well, and in 1998 they added a MLB team. So the Mutiny had a pretty tough go of it battling it out with 3 other pro teams for the fans' entertainment dollars in a moderate sized market. Tulsa, of course, is still without a pro franchise, so an MLS franchise there should do pretty well since they'd be the only game in town other than Univ. of Tulsa athletics.
Has there been a dramatic drop in Columbus's attendance since the Bluejackets came to town? Can one say catagorically that markets with lots of sports franchises (LA and NY) do much worse than those with just a couple (SJ and Columbus)? Of course, my main point in dredging up the Tampa and Tulsa NASL stats is to show how utterly meaningless they are. Every city is different than it was 20 years ago--in size, demographics, commercial base. I'd imagine that the only reason that Tampa got an MLS team to begin with was its NASL heritage; I mean, it had no owner and only an old NFL canyon to play in. If I'm running MLS, I'd be warry of any city touting its NASL figures.
Saturated markets: One of the nice things about hockey and soccer is that their season don't interlock as does football, basketball and hockey. I wouldn't be surprised to see a carryover of fans from the Crew to the Bluejackets. What you have to realize about a market the size of Tulsa in comparing it to Tampa Bay is that Tampa Bay has three other major professional sports franchises and Orlando which is 91 miles if they get homesick for basketball. Tampa's market is fully saturated for its size. MLS is just another size show. Tulsa on the otherhand is a market with a hunger for a higher level than minor league sports. In this case, I would defend Tulsa's history of being a great market with stadium filling potential. You just can't toss out all NASL histories. Tulsa probably averaged 36,000 everytime the New York Cosmos came to town and every time they scored that crowd was so rabid with excitement that you could hear the hysteria back in Oklahoma Ctiy.
And I'm always amazed how folks get myopic when talking about sports franchises. Screw the Blue Jackets, Columbus has a long time, successful, incumbant, professional summer sports team. Anyone ever hear of the Columbus Clippers? They had 475,000 in attendance this summer.
So? If they had only 14 home games, they would surely have drawn more than 6,800/game. The Clippers are an incumbant team that affect the sporting marketplace in Columbus. Moreso, I dare say, than the presence of the Blue Jackets.
While the Clipper's 6,800/game average attendance no doubt drives down the Crew's attendance to some extent, I imagine it's effect is fairly small since Columbus has a metropolitan area population of 1.5 million. But if you're going to consider the impact of minor league baseball on Crew attendance, we may as well acknowledge that they're other entertainment options available to Columbus folks that are competing for the same entertainment dollars. For instance, I'm sure there're several multiscreen cineplexes in the Columbus area that each draw close to 6,800 patrons on good days. So each of those 20-screen theaters could in its own way impact Crew attendance just as much as the higher profile Clippers would.
Why? Why do I have to be smoking tumbleweeds (LOL)? You're so funny! I can take the time between smokes to stop and appreciate your humor though!
True "context" would also examine attendances other than the oft-quoted Rowdies figures. Anybody interested can search "NASL" keyword and find a couple of sites that have complete info since I don't feel like posting the entire sets of figures. Once again, there are lies, damned lies and STATISTICS IN GENERAL (there... I didn't say YOUR statistics this time--hopes this makes you feel better)... Analyzing these stats does absolutely no good unless you know at least some of the stories behind them. One of them would be the story of Rodney Marsh's Tampa Bay teams and it's "Rowdies" fans... look it up some time. Tulsa was the only team from the NASL's big expansion push to 24 teams in '78 to be considered a true success. Why Tulsa and not Memphis?... or Anaheim?... or Oakland?... or Atlanta?... or Jacksonville? Tulsa, a perennial .500 team, got its franchise (moved after unsuccessful stints in San Antonio and Honolulu) partly based on drawing over 10,000 fans for an exhibition game between 2 NASL teams the previous year... a breath of fresh air compared to the more cynical discussions these days about O/Is, new stadiums and $$$, $$$, and more $$$. During the years in which the NASL had 20+ franchises, Tulsa landed in the Top 6 in attendance each year. Perennial top drawing teams were: Cosmos, Minnesota, Seattle, Tampa, and Vancouver. Tulsa drew consistently higher crowds than current/recent clubs in MLS cities of San Jose, Miami (FtL), Boston, Denver, Dallas, DC, Los Angeles and Chicago. These facts are based on statistics ("lies, damned lies"--SEE ABOVE) that still do not explain the team/owner/facilities success or failure in these cities. Chicago had poor outdoor attendance (season ticket holders had to go to games at Comiskey, Wrigley and Soldier Field in the same year) despite the occasional big crowd for an important game. Indoor games at Chicago Stadium actually outdrew the outdoor games, even with arguably the most exciting team (Granitza, Steffenhagen and co.) to watch outside of the Cosmos. Tulsa's biggest competition between sports franchises was not between the Roughnecks and the minor league hockey team or AA baseball club or even college football... it was between the outdoor Roughnecks and the INDOOR Roughnecks. Tulsa played at the creepy old 6100 seat Fairgrounds Pavillion and managed to fill it with avg. att. of 5 to 6K those years. NASL wasn't satisfied being just an outdoor league and competed with the MISL's "orange ball" with their own indoor season... at one point the indoor season was 40 games long. This gave a chance for teams in San Diego, Chicago, Atlanta, etc. a chance to make up for the lack of $$$ from gate rceipts during the outdoor season. When it was rumored the 'necks were in financial straits and might not be around for the '84 season, a caller to KRMG radio asked "why we even needed a soccer team anyway..." Tulsa fans responded by deluging the radio station with offers of support to the tune of nearly $60,000 in pledges enabling the team to make its payroll and get a new local ownership group who changed the team colors from red/black to piss yellow/pea green... aaarrrgh! Add that to rumors the 7-team league was going under with the shortened 24-game season and you have the ingredients for the only year the Roughnecks averaged less than 10,000 per game... Rochester, in general, did NOT have good attendance figures... so, gee, how do we explain the obviously successful Rhinos franchise? The old Lancers played in a run-down high school stadium with bad lighting in a not particularly desirable area of town (NOT like Lockhart; for OKC fans--see Taft Stadium). I think the biggest factor that can be used for MLS success is those cities that got huge crowds and exposure during the WC in '94... Rose Bowl, Soldier Field, Foxboro, etc. EXCEPT for the surprising number of unsold seats at the Cotton Bowl... okay, I had to rag on Dallas' fans at some point... I think A-league success can certainly be used for Rochester, but the rest of the teams that draw 2-5K I see as a non-issue. Some cities won't really draw for minor league... ANYTHING... Tulsa sure hasn't... As for a comparably sized city as Tulsa (and there are many), please inform me when Fresno, Little Rock, Wichita and the like decide they can commit to selling at least 7500 season tickets and talk openly about building a new soccer stadium... The news in Tulsa is not about the city's pursuit of just ANY pro sports franchise (NHL, NBA, major league LACROSSE?!?). The only interest is in MLS. It's been quoted in the paper that the ONLY major league franchise that Tulsa could support would probably be soccer. That, my friends, is MY idea of CONTEXT... And that quote from Paul Harvey, well... he's an OKIE!... "Now you know... the REST of the story"... "Good day." Next on Tulsa's agenda: a $100,000 feasibility study that will presumably involve people whose job it will be to find out more about MSAs, metro population, potential fan bases than any of us here know... During those years
Hey, common ground. Earlier in this thread, I wrote: Maybe we can agree that: 1) At this point, it is possible to gauge the potential success of an MLS franchise in a metro area based on such factors as size, demographics, business community, and so on. 2) These factors are more important than small town boosterism, big city snobbishness, and other myopias that we here may suffer from. 3) It would behoove MLS to research these factors to determine which areas have the best potential host a franchise. Although I think the onus of researching this question is on MLS, not Tulsa's city fathers, any work to make more light and less heat is welcome in my book.
I have a good idea, why not put one team in the MLS in the first round of expansion with a team in the Pacific Northwest. Both Tulsa and OKC are worthy of teams, based on the proposals before us, so in order to solve the national footprint problem we should expand by two in 2004 with one in either Tulsa or OKC going that year with either Portland or Seatlle. Then in 2005 or 2006 the other of the Oklahoma teams that didn't get in goes in with a team either from Texas or St. Louis. This way the national footprint is imporved a bit during both rounds of expansion and everyone should be happy with that.
Searching for common ground... actually you'd summarily dismissed Tulsa based on a .8 MSA? versus 1.1 million for OKC and probably Rochester... not only was this grounds to dismiss a possible franchise in Tulsa, but you called a potential Tulsa franchise a "disaster." Yet OKC comes in under the radar. Hard to find common ground there... I think you've underestimated MLS. I'm sure they've already researched these issues. A Tulsa bid for a charter franchise (yes, sportsfans, only TEN years after the demise of the NASL) was VERY close to coming together. According to the local paper in Tulsa, the only reason Tulsa did not get a team the first time around was due to the narrow, big-crowned astro-turf field at Skelly Stadium. This indicates to me that there were possible I/Os who could deal with the huge franchise fees. I was very disappointed at the announcement of the first 10 franchises. First off, I lived in Chicago-- though I thought Tulsa deserved one of those teams above Chi-Town... if I were to guess the first 10 teams according to potential fan support, I'd try: LA, NYC, Chicago, Boston, and DC due to the fact they're large markets and because they successfully hosted WC games... Columbus (over 10K guaranteed season ticket holders can't be wrong)... then, in no particular order: Seattle, Minneapolis, Tampa, and either San Jose, Portland or Tulsa... Does this guarantee their success? No. But it's hard for me to come up with any kind of scenario where Seattle, Minneapolis and Tulsa do any WORSE than Denver, Dallas, and KC. It's nice to see Colorado's attendance picking up with the new field and those July 4 games, but when I went the first summer of MLS and sat watching Rapids/Wizards in front of 8,000 spread out at Mile High Stadium, I couldn't be more frustrated at the lack of atmosphere. It is especially telling that according to the mayor and other city officials, it was MLS that came to Tulsa... not the other way around. Any "they like me, they really really like me" syndrome this summer is coming from the Tulsa camp, not MLS. Obviously, MLS would not go to some small market city if it hadn't at least done a little homework. I don't think league officials have surfaced in Fresno or Little Rock... think Tulsa's NASL days had a little something to do with it. Right now, I think league officials are waiting to see if Tulsa can build a stadium and guarantee a certain number of season tickets (Tulsa paper quoted a "magic number" of 7500). And, if MLS has not plunked down $$$ to find out how feasible a franchise would be in Tulsa, I'd at least wager that they're waiting for Tulsa officials and possible I/Os to do that work for them. Considering the millions of dollars at stake from long-term local I/Os and a new stadium in a weak economy, it's a safe bet that Tulsa officials will do that work. A failed franchise in small-market Tulsa wouldn't doom the league. But it would spell doom for the mayor/city council come election time and the loss of millions of bucks from that local I/O group if that jewel of a stadium everybody worked so hard to get built ends up sitting empty. So, it's definitely in Tulsa's interest to look at that feasability study closely before going public with proposals/sites. OKC, on the other hand, has almost "lucked" into a perfect situation. Edmond's Wantland Stadium could be expanded or demolished and rebuilt: woulda gone to 15K anyway. Suburban Edmond citizens are much more likely to pass a sales tax/hospitality tax than Tulsa, especially if it's just to add capacity the existing venue for MLS specs. Edmond really is a "soccer hotbed" much like McKinney in Texas. And because of the wealth in the area, a stadium there would not turn into a "bare bones" project. As I've said before, I think OKC has just as much/more potential as an MLS franchise in 2005 as Tulsa did in 1978. Tulsa, though, definitely deserves some "brownie points" for having a previously existing fan base-- and the knowledge of how soccer fared the first time in Tulsa and what mistakes the first time around that might need to be corrected... In the end, MLS hopefully WILL be able to choose between 7 to 8 cities to award 2 to 4 franchises... but if those cities all have new 23K stadiums and a guarantee of 7500 season ticket holders, I'd be highly surprised.
Why not Why no? Because there are others cities like houston and seattle that would be better for the mls and attendance than oklahoma.
Re: Why not But only under the right conditions... Do you simply put a team in Houston, Seattle, and/or Philly without an owner or a good stadium deal? Ditto for Detroit, Milwaukee, San Diego, Minneapolis, Portland and Atlanta. MLS is trying to show potential investors it can make a profit or at least break even in the near future. Any long-term owners/investors will be expected to "pitch-in" and absorb the league's losses year after year until it stops losing $$$. And besides, what makes you think that attendance will be higher in cities that already have popular MLB franchises as well as the NFL and NBA? Tulsa had a successful NASL franchise in the late 70s/80s even though there had been no youth soccer league there whatsoever until a year or two before. And no reason to expect the city to become a "soccer hotbed." Tulsa later became one of the initial candidates for MLS before the league started. But before this past July, NEITHER CITY was mentioned AT ALL until a story broke in the Daily Oklahoman that Express Sports of OKC was interested in pursuing a MLS franchise and that Tulsa had been visited by MLS officials as well. Express Sports officials are working with the city of Edmond and Univ. of Central Oklahoma about expanding/renovating Wantland Stadium to MLS specs. The mayor of Tulsa is risking his reputation/re-election chances on building a new stadium through a combination of public/private funding and is actively recruiting an ownership group. With all the stadium news/rumors in various cities (esp. in Rochester and Milwaukee), it seems highly unlikely that BOTH cities would actually follow through on their proposals. Tulsa's could be voted down in a bond proposal; OKC/Edmond's could become a problem of sharing dates in the fall with the local DivII college and Edmond's high school teams. If they both go forward without a hitch, I'd liken it to lightning striking twice in the same place... months down the road after feasability studies and finances meet political reality, we'll see... Garber has already said there wouldn't be 2 expansion teams in Oklahoma. But months from now, if BOTH CITIES come up with 2 of the 4 best proposals (or worst case scenario-- the ONLY 2 PROPOSALS!), would MLS still say "no"? So, look for news in the Houston Chronicle, etc. about possible MLS expansion and post away...
are you kidding? There are no pro sports in Oklahoma for a reason. Granted I have a personal vendetta against that state due to personal reasons, but I still think that cities such as St. Louis, Houston, and Philly are much more deserving. But we are ALL putting the cart before the horse. Didn't MLS just contract?
Re: are you kidding? Originally posted by caputobd There are no pro sports in Oklahoma for a reason. And that reason is WHAT?... vendetta boy!?! PLEASE ENLIGHTEN US! Granted I have a personal vendetta against that state due to personal reasons, but I still think that cities such as St. Louis, Houston, and Philly are much more deserving. Sounds like you have some PERSONAL PROBLEMS!... You moved, didn't ya? And you moved to a city that HAS a team... I lived in Chi-town for 10 years and can compare the histories of the Chicago Fire, the Sting, and the Tulsa Roughnecks and see advantages to MLS locating in a small market city. Why Tulsa and OKC when no other small market cities (or large market, for that matter) want to step it up? I don't know-- but for the time being, these cities are putting their $$$ where their mouth is. Unlike McKinney, TX or Kansas City. Once again... please enlighten us as to WHY St. Louis, who already has the Cardinals, the Rams and the Blues, DESERVES another team??? Or Houston, who has a HUGE new ballpark for the Astros and another one for the Texans? Or Philly, who's soccer team would be the its 5th major league team (or 6th, if you count WUSA)? The old NASL put teams in Seattle and Tampa YEARS BEFORE the NFL and MLB moved in. Those franchises were much more successful than ones in the NFL cities of LA, Chicago, St. Louis, Houston, Dallas, Philly and even NY (pre-Pele). As for attendance, what makes the current MLS cities so darned impressive? Univ of Tulsa has had dismal losing college football teams for the past 10 seasons yet still manages to OUTDRAW MLS teams yearly in SJ, KC and Dallas. OKC puts up 8K a game for minor league HOCKEY. Ditto for AAA baseball while Tulsa pulls in 4-5K per game for AA baseball (Yes, statisticians, I know this may not be a particularly fair comparison but it makes the point that both Tulsa and OKC can draw a MLS respectable crowds... esp. with a new stadium). May I remind you that in year 7 of MLS no team draws over 20K (Colorado may barely but I attribute that to a new stadium, doubleheaders, and 61,000 for the July 4 game). There are no NY Cosmos franchises drawing 45K or Seattle Sounders or Minnesota Kicks or Tampa Bay Rowdies or Vancouver Whitecaps or Montreal Manic drawing 25-30K... yet there are MANY more kids/adults playing soccer NOW than there were 20 years ago... someone 'splain that one to me... But we are ALL putting the cart before the horse. Didn't MLS just contract? If "we are" then so is Garber, Hunt and the rest of MLS. MLS is in the same kind of position the NHL was in decades ago... a handful of teams with little/no TV coverage (in fact no national coverage for a LONG TIME). The league simply needs more successful teams that at the very least can come close to breaking even WITHOUT TV REVENUES. MLS contracted 2 teams in NFL/MLB markets... yet other teams with attendance closer to 10K than 20K haven't been contracted... YET. In other words, MLS may need to "contract" again in the next few years unless attendance/ownership/stadium situations change. Maybe MLS's new motto should be: "Expand or die..."
Re: Re: are you kidding? I'm going to start another thread on this point after the final regular season figures are in, but do you have any real proof that MLS markets with few or no pro teams perform better at the gate than do those with many teams? I know you hate statistics, but try to spot a trend in this: Los Angeles CSMA: 6 pro teams + MLS New York CSMA: 9 pro teams + MLS Washington-Baltimore CSMA: 5 pro teams + MLS Columbus SMA: 1 pro team + MLS Kansas City SMA: 2 pro teams + MLS SF-Oak.-SJ CSMA: 6 pro teams + MLS Miami-Ft. Lauderdale CSMA: 4 pro teams Tampa SMA: 3 pro teams