Your predictions how the rest of the expansion process pans out

I know they want an NYC2, but I don't think it'll be the Cosmos. I think they'll spend a little extra time in NASL before switching to MLS (though I'd say that's probably a goal for both the ownership and Garber). Maybe 24 teams, maybe more if there is enough demand in enough markets. Garber has expressed interest in the Southeast, and that could include Florida.

If you're asking what I'd like to see, I'd like to see a San Diego team, maybe Atlanta, "promotion" of Orlando from USL Pro or Tampa Bay from NASL, San Antonio...

Oh, and of course DFW2

 

20. New York Cosmos
21. Orlando City

After that, it is really a mess that would depend on hundreds of variables. Ownership groups, stadium deals, local support are the biggest ones. Support is probably the biggest hurdle. 10,000 avergae seems to be the magic number, but with the recent trends you are going to need 13,000 to be competitve

-San Antonio is interesting...heavy Latino population, dedicated sports fans (San Antonio Spurs are so huge there), and the Scorpions are drawing between 6,000-10,000... but the issue is a stadium.
-Minnesota is a good market but they have the 3rd lowest attendance in NASL and they won the title
-A deprived market might work. St. Louis comes to mind.
-A destination market startegy could see another Florida team, Las Vegas or New Orleans

I would probably rank them like this, in order of likelihood of success, although that is not the only consideration.

San Antonio
Atlanta
Tampa Bay / Ft. Lauderdale
Carolina (Take your pick)
Minnesota
St Louis
Las Vegas
New Orleans



NASL attendance for 2012:
Season average attendance:
PR: 1260 (9)
Edmonton: 1584 (7)
Minnesota: 2999 (8)
Ft Lauderdale: 3358 (9)
Tampa Bay: 3146 (8)
Carolina: 3266 (9)
Atlanta: 4756 (8)
San Antonio: 9723 (8)

USL attendance for 2012:
Season average attendance:
Dayton: 686 (8)**L.A.: 803 (8)Charlotte: 831 (9)
Pittsburgh: 864 (8)
Antigua: 1067 (6)**
Harrisburg: 1327 (7)**
Richmond: 2553 (8)
Charleston: 4024 (9)
Wilmington: 4042 (9)
Rochester: 6175 (7)
Orlando: 6544 (8)**

 

You are aware San Antonio is building a SSS right?

 

A big one, it's going to end up with like 18,000 seats...

 

I think the league will decide to rest at 24 teams. I would hope that means two conferences of 12, balanced conference schedule, play each non-conference opponent once (or half of them twice, who you play being determined by previous season's record).

Based solely on recent league activity and stadium news, my guess would be the New York Cosmos at 20, then the final four markets being Orlando and San Antonio, then Carolina and Minnesota. But it's just a guess.

 

I think that the league will not impose any sort of "cap," ever. They will wait for interested parties to submit bids, examine each one on its merits, and choose on an individual basis whether to accept them. I honestly don't see any reason to believe that they have a specific number of teams in mind.

They have not the slightest regard for symmetry or balanced schedules or any other Eurosnob wet-dream league setup, nor should they.

I think that NYC2 is going to happen, it's just a matter of when the stadium situation gets sorted out, and it sure looks like the latest idea, building in the old World's Fair site in Queens, can fly. Orlando and San Antonio look to be the next two best prospects, and Minnesota depends solely on how badly Zigi Wilf wants to be a committed MLS owner along with the Vikings. I HOPE Detroit is still in the mix, but things have been a little too quiet around here lately.

The Las Vegas group seems to have a bit more ambition than money (also a question for Detroit), and they seem to have hit some snags in the approval process.

Those are probably the only realistic possibilities for expansion in the near term, but a new motivated rich guy could appear and change that at any time.

 

when i first read that the cosmos will come back but in the nasl my first reaction was, that was a dumb move! but after a few hours i began to think well that wasnt so dumb after all. they are taking the cascadia approach (timbers,sounders,whitecaps) start off in d2 build a team and fan base. and as the owner stated in the nasl he has more free will to do more with his team then he would if he were in the mls. travel to other countries to play there top teams, get a tv deal and keep the profits of what ever merchadise sold and revanue. the mls will work on getting a stadium put in first witch can take from a year to 2 to get it all signed plus another year or year half to build. in the mean time the cosmos can build up there team schedual games against the red bulls and the reds up north. mls has no time table on when to add a 20th team really. and in fact it works to there own advantage to when looking into other teams to , to see if there crowds get bigger. if orlando can keep the crowds coming and get up to 9k-13k and sustain that (also the scorpians and other teams in the nasl and usl) then after ny2 then it makes them look good plus it helps get those owners time to gather enough money and get a stadium in place.
i like the fact that the cosmos owner has said that there main goal while in the nasl is to win the us open cup. he wants to take the sounder approach and treat it like something very important which many teams lately have not. the us open cup should be taken serious and hopefully we can get a few matches on espn,fox (not fox soccer) nbc or even comcast sports net (for the regional teams playing)

i like the nasl competition better then the usl pro, the intensity is higher and better play.
i hope down the road the mls and nasl can work out a partnership (not merger but religation or creat a small tourney where the top 4 from mls plays top four from nasl)

my list of teams to be brought in

1)nyc 2
2)or 3) orlando
2)or 3) san antonio
4) tampa bay
5) atlanta
6)las vegas (really the only west coast city left with san deigo)
7) san deigo (crossing fingers chivas usa relocate here and or change the name to)
8)st, louis (i think we can all agree this is the one market where the mls has to move to )
9)ottowa
10)edmenton (this will get all canadian major markets for soccer )
11)detroit

(sorry for incorrect spelling)

 

I love how this keeps getting mentioned. Their ownership is far too stubborn.

I guess San Diego will just have to come up with its own team...

 

They did, they play in Tijuana ... *cough*

Jesus ....

... what exactly is the issue with a stadium ? I'd love to hear it, but before you respond:

 

Good one about TJ

Also, is that the updated Scorpions stadium? I thought they were gonna shoot for like 20k or something.

 

Yes, it's the updated model. Much better in my opinion.

 

The owner is going straight to phase two right now as there building it as yes I believe I read that it will be 20k

 

Personally, I'd move Detroit up the list. Detroit City FC has looked really good this year in the NPSL, doing some great work to create a fan experience.

 

How's attendance and revenue/profits? Would Detroit be able to handle a professional soccer team at the D1 level? I'm asking because I have no idea.

 

They're claiming attendance between 1000 and 1500. As far as revenue, they would be able to earn more if they didn't play at a high school, where alcohol is not allowed and where they could possibly get some revenue from parking (which they may, although Cass Tech is in a solid urban setting, so there's not a lot of it if they do). I would guess that they're doing all right, though. I'm guessing break-even or slightly better.

Short answer: Yes. Longer answer: Hell yes. If there is one positive about Detroit that everyone (even those who get off on going out of their way to run the city down) can agree on is that the area supports its major league sports teams.

It minor league teams, in any sport, not so much. I think putting an NASL team in Detroit would A) fail, and B) not reflect the potential for MLS in Detroit.

 

Here's what i think/hope is going to happen
2014 New York Cosmos
2016 San Antonio Scorpions and Orlando City SC
2019/20 Miami and Las Vegas

If MLS continues to grow instead of heading down the relegation path i can see Tampa, Atlanta, Ottawa, Edmonton, San Diego, St Louis, Sacramento, Baltimore, Detroit, Austin and Minneapolis fighting to be the next 6 (to finish at 30 teams) or if MLS decided to make a 2nd division with relegation I can see all of these Cities amongst it along with other NASL and USL teams

 

I have a feeling if relegation is a goal (which Garber gives us no reason to think that it is), it'll be MLS creating their own second division. (another discussion for another time, or choose any of the 100's of pro/rel threads here).

That being said, San Antonio has great attendance and should be an obvious candidate. I would love to see San Diego, but with the targeted-approach MLS has used in recent years, I see NY Cosmos (if they can pull the numbers), but more likely San Antonio and, maybe, Orlando City.

 

If the Cosmos & Orlando both make it that make's 21, so you figure it's got to be an even number right? So either one more or three more. We all know the contenders pretty much, take you're pick.
Maybe another in Florida, Strikers or Rowdies, personally i think they should both stay in the same league whatever league that is. I think something might come together in St Louie one of these days or another market that just goes under the rader along with the Cosmos & Orlando.

 

Seeing as I'm from Minnesota, and seeing as we're getting a brand new, state of the art stadium, I'd also like to see the Twin Cities move up the list a bit too

But judging from what I've been hearing from fans in Detroit, their grass-roots approach will likely support soccer at any level, especially at the highest possible. I think that they could be a great potential market for NASL in five years or so if they keep up their head of steam. (It sounds like they'll be moving to a college football field soon, so still no alcohol or parking, though.)

I also think it's flawed logic to say that Detroit will support a D4 team at the level of 1,000 or 1,500 a game but wouldn't support an NASL team at a higher level--even taking into account that tickets will likely triple or quadruple in cost from their current price point of $5.

 

Flawed logic? As in, just assuming that there are enough fans who would pay more money to see minor-league pro soccer to support a team that has to pay its players (which DCFC does not), just because there are 1500 people who regularly support a brand-new amateur team that charges next to nothing?

You may disagree with my opinion, which is fine, but don't pretend that your opinion is one damned bit more logical than mine. Because it isn't.

 

We can agree to disagree on that, then. I didn't mean to be dismissive. And I don't mean to now.

It just makes sense to me that deeper financial investment in clubs by their owners, especially in the way of paying players, will result in a better quality product, and will in turn lead to increased interest and support.

You're right, though. The club charges next to nothing for admission now, and I said as much. But I think that most fans are willing to pay the increase in ticket prices if they can expect better services and a better product on the field.

Plus, DCFC seem to have a good number of very energetic fans who are already invested in the club. My hope was that the club could continue to count on that support and more, especially if the team were playing at a higher level--and with all the amenities that might come with it.

Of course success is always relative. I would assume that the relative success of the Bucks at various levels of the minor leagues and the short but promising history of DCFC would demonstrate that greater Michigan and Detroit do, in fact, support minor league soccer. Seems like sound logic to me.

People don't always choose to spend their money in logically consistent ways though. And sometimes what sounds logical to me might seem nonsensical to someone else. I'm not sure that your rebuttal to my post demonstrated the logic of your previous argument, but you might well be right that D2 soccer would get less (or no more) support than D4. And at the end of the day you'd be right and I'd be wrong. So what would that say about my argument?

 

Except that was not the original intention of any of those teams.

 

It's not always a straight-line correlation between the amount you pay your players, and the amount of interest in buying tickets to see said players. Some MLS fans have advocated this approach for years, as if simply spending $10M more per team (not realistic, then or now) on players would result in a "better" product and then more people will just naturally buy more tickets than they did before.

Deeper investments in clubs by their owners in all aspects of their operations, from quality players to quality facilities to quality sales, marketing and community involvement efforts can result in increased interest and support.

Too few fans - and fewer people who operate clubs at all levels - grasp the actual diversity of investment in resources that has to be made, while too many of each presume that all you have to do is go buy some expensive players (or build a stadium) and that will do the trick for you.

 

Better. The thing that keeps me from just assuming that a D2 team will duplicate the success of a D4 team is that it just takes so much more money to run a professional team, and not just due to paying the players. I'm not sure that there would be enough new fans who would support D2 soccer to cover the additional investment.

The stigma of "minor league" doesn't mean much to the 1500 young fans who have come out to DCFC games, and those who come out to Bucks games, for whatever reason (one of which is, IMO, that the bulk of the players can have local ties, and do on both teams). But I think that Detroit fans will never fully embrace a minor-league pro team. They didn't in baseball or hockey, and Detroit has loved both of those sports at the major-league level for generations.