Finally - Montreal to MLS - Your Open Thread
by Dave Clark on May 7, 2010 7:20 AM PDT
in Sounders: MLS Regular Season
Email
Printwww.montreal2012.com is their website. The announcement is today at 7:40AM (right while I will be roasting coffee) with streaming around the webs I thought I would post an open thread so you could share your thoughts about the 3 Canadian side joining the League, as well as the League's growth to 19 teams by 2012.
This is also team #4 that will be growing out of a USL/NASL2.0 side and so should have some of those advantages as the cities that have been psuedo-promoted seem to do both on the business and field of play side of the house.
Welcome to the League.
44 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Key Question #1
The Schedule
It can’t be balanced without significantly stepping on international dates. How will Conferences be set-up to reflect this?
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
As a reminder
How was the league structured the last time they had an odd number of teams. Was it single table?
Because if it's not Love | Then it's the bomb ... | That will bring us together
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 7, 2010 8:39 AM PDT up reply actions
The League has never been a single table
The closest is this year
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
What about
setting a number like 36 teams and doing two conferences of 18. Those conferences wouldn’t play each other, except in the playoffs.
Interesting take at USSoccerPlayers
The full story is here, you have to get through the preview on the Sounders-Galaxy game. The interesting part of the article is this idea that FIFA may be putting pressure on MLS not to expand much, if at all, past 20. This certainly gives some strength to the idea of relegation as being one of the ways for MLS to get around this. Anyway, here’s the money quote:
Moving on, Major League Soccer didn’t intend to surprise anybody with this morning’s announcement that Montreal is the 19th MLS team. At the same time, it does put the squeeze on that 20th slot. We’re going to assume for the sake of argument that FIFA isn’t going to allow Major League Soccer to keep expanding at will. They’re already past FIFA’s optimal number for a domestic top flight. Even counting the size of the United States and the inclusion of Canada, let’s pretend there’s such a thing as too many clubs.
Because if it's not Love | Then it's the bomb ... | That will bring us together
There are leagues with more than 18 teams scattered around the world
Every single league in England to start.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
They are implying the limit is 20
I’m not saying they’re right, just wondering if there’s any precedent to go beyond that number.
Because if it's not Love | Then it's the bomb ... | That will bring us together
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 7, 2010 9:07 AM PDT up reply actions
Soccer in the US
They would be stupid to stop at 20 teams. IF 30 teams can be profitable, get 30 teams.
IT is rediculous that FIFA put rules together for a nation like England and then tries to force them on the US. I say get the World Cup commitment and then screw FIFA.
MLS can then address things that FIFA will never address like diving .
They aren't rules put together for England
England’s top division has 20
Lower divisions with 24
It is also a rule that is done to prevent fixture congestion, so it wouldn’t be a problem if MLS plays less than 34 matches.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Why ?
Are they pressuring the US leagues then ?
also
The Don already said they are leaving the schedule at 30 games, no matter. So why would FIFA care how we run our league ?
US fans like me, like the excitement of the playoffs and the idea of forcing a team to play minor league ball is bizarre, so FIFA leave us alone.
You may be reading too much into this
Nothing FIFA has said would force a no-playoff or relegation system. The only things this IMPLIES is that they MIGHT want the league to not grow beyond 20 teams. With three teams currently unable to draw 10k a game — and New England barely drawing 5K on Wednesday — I don’t think MLS should be looking beyond 20, anyway.
Because if it's not Love | Then it's the bomb ... | That will bring us together
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 7, 2010 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions
Maybe
But if you had 30 Seattles out there is no reason to cap it…other than you can’t do it like they do in Europe, with a single table, regular season only.
I can see your point obviously, why have 30 Dallases ? I dont disagree, but I think that MLS is primed to take off. then again with so many rooting for Landon to leave and play in England, maybe I am wrong.
I think you are wrong to a degree
Nothing suggests, and I’m curious why you’d think otherwise, that there are 30 Seattles out there when there aren’t even two. The reality is the league draws about 15-17k in the average market. There are five teams that struggle to draw 10k. I would rather see MLS shore up those numbers than move beyond 20 teams, regardless of what FIFA wants.
Because if it's not Love | Then it's the bomb ... | That will bring us together
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 7, 2010 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
First of all, relegation is minor leagues
also, I think FIFA are concerned about internationals that usually happen during the summer, so affect the MLS. Obviously more teams are affected if the summer scehdule is retained.
"We're investigating the investigative procedure of the investigation of Tony Bernazard"---Omar Minaya (he really didn't say it but he would"
Good for Montreal
It seems like Montreal already has sigificant fan support, like Portland and Vancouver seem to. The more teams that are added with large fan bases (or which can attract large fan-bases) the better it is for MLS speficially and soccer in N America in general.
You have to think that MLS badly wants a team in the SE next. The closest they are to any big Soutern media market is DC.
yeah
Atlanta or a Florida team seem like the logical choice. Except Florida is the anti soccer hot bed.
If 20 is even a temporary limit
I think MLS is wasting its time by going to Florida. I understand the need for MLS to be in the South, but I hope if it goes there that they choose a city that hasn’t already failed.
Because if it's not Love | Then it's the bomb ... | That will bring us together
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 7, 2010 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions
I couldn't agree more
FL failed. It is funny the people there say no it didn’t. but you mean to tell me they were drawing Sounders numbers and the ownership pulled the plug ? No. so it failed.
My second favorite is the people asking for another NY team. 13k for the one that exists now, but put in a second team.
Someone said that San Antonio was a great choice, 7th biggest city, not much competition from other sports. Big hispanic population. I don’t have an opinion, but on paper, seems great.
Funny how Garber genuinely wants another NY team
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5guG78CQV-6j9AxH5OH4ODGcHZOQAD9FI57RO3
Personally, I am in favor of St. Louis getting #20 – more regional competition for Kansas City and Chicago.
by magistermilitum on May 7, 2010 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions
St Louis, as I'm sure you know
was a great town in the 30s
"We're investigating the investigative procedure of the investigation of Tony Bernazard"---Omar Minaya (he really didn't say it but he would"
Not sure I agree on SA
since the Hispanic fan of MLS seems to be as much myth as reality according to the last #s posted here. MLS should be looking for young, international cities that potentially don’t have a ton of crowding already in their sports media market. Where that is, I don’t know, but I’m not sure SA fits the bill (and another NY team is a pipe dream at this point).
Thing with San Antonio
Even if you take out the hispanic population (like just don’t count them at all) it’s still one of the biggest untapped markets in the U.S. (assuming you do the same thing when calculating other markets). I think Austin is the better of the two markets, but I think either one will almost certainly be better than Dallas.
I’d rather see Dallas relocate to one of those cities (Pizza Hut Park is really a HS football stadium in the eyes of people in Frisco from what I can tell) than put an expansion franchise there.
Because if it's not Love | Then it's the bomb ... | That will bring us together
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 7, 2010 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions
It's really all about TV
I think the Atlanta or Florida is all about TV. Right now those markets are dark because there isn’t a regional team to root for. Even if the team draws terribly, at least they would be getting on local news and covered in the paper. In theory that would increase the size of the national audience for ESPN.
Yes, that is weak, but I believe that is what’s behind the drive to put a team in the SE corner of the country.
It isn't weak
It is exactly what ESPN has said.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Even if they want to put a team in the SE, I don't think expansion is the answer.
If I’m Don Garber I have to give some serious thought to pulling franchises out of places they don’t get any support (*cough*Texas*cough*) so you’re at least putting a little less on the line.
Also, what about a franchise to Charleston? It’s not a huge market, but the Battery have a pretty nice facility and decent support, or so I’ve heard.
When we say Texas...
Really, the only failure is Dallas. Houston is doing just fine by MLS standards. Let’s not make one team’s struggles out to be representative of the state’s support for soccer on the whole.
Because if it's not Love | Then it's the bomb ... | That will bring us together
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 7, 2010 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions
They are on their way
I believe it’s all approved.
Fair enough. The points stands though.
As long as there are teams still drawing fewer than 10k per game, I think the expansion talk needs to slow a little.
I'd say expand to 20 and then reassess
I think we pretty much agree. Talk of more than 20 is probably getting ahead of ourselves.
Because if it's not Love | Then it's the bomb ... | That will bring us together
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 7, 2010 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions
Perspective on Charleston
They play is USL2 and have a current capacity of about 5k. Less than 400k live in the city and less than 750k live in the metro area. It would be, by a huge margin, the smallest market in the MLS (Salt Lake is currently smallest with about 1.1 million in the metro area). They have a great thing going over there, but it is not a major league city.
Because if it's not Love | Then it's the bomb ... | That will bring us together
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 7, 2010 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions
I think a centrally located Carolina franchise might work
The Railhawks and the Battery are already there. It is reasonable distance from Atlanta.
Though I’ve never even been to that part of the country and actually I know nothing about it. I just like the idea of it.
I can’t support Florida. Haven’t they had two chances already? Maybe for a relocation, but not a new team.
The issue
If Vancouver, Montreal, and Portland all come in and just sparkle, I’d be 100% behind a Charlston strategy. I know they have a history of success and local support, but I need to see more then just promise from the rest of the USL upgrade franchises.
We set the standard, but is it because the Sonics left or because building on a USL franchise is the right way to build up for MLS?
We are already gambling on three franchises. A fourth in the smallest market seems like a gamble too far.
Again, if those other three come in great guns, then I’d vote for the Battery.
If Vancouver, Montreal, and Portland all come in and just sparkle
I think there’s a decent chance of this. All three markets have a great history, good support at the USL level and have shown a lot of excitement around the prospect of MLS. We’ll see how it works in practice, but I think all three will be closer to Seattle or Toronto than Dallas in terms of attendance/ratings/support.
Editor of www.sportingmadness.ca and www.canuckpuck.com.
by Andrew Bucholtz on May 7, 2010 9:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Again for perspective
Porltand and Vancouver both have metro areas over 2M. They are roughly three times to size of Charleston. They are at the lower end of MLS, but about the same size as KC and bigger than CBUS or RSL.
Because if it's not Love | Then it's the bomb ... | That will bring us together
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 8, 2010 7:39 AM PDT up reply actions
CCL
Sorry for so many posts. I love MLS expanding.
I was reading the Montreal drew 55,000 for their CCL game. One, Sounders please put our game in QWest, we cannot be number two in this catagory.
Two, for all those that love promotion/relegation, how about just the pro side as MLS expands. IF you make CCL and draw 55,000 fans, you get a MLS team ?
MLS gets a known commodity and success gets rewarded by D2 teams.
In case you missed it
Way back when I did a post making the case for Austin as No. 20. I’m not sure I totally agree with everything I wrote then, but I think it has some interesting info.
Because if it's not Love | Then it's the bomb ... | That will bring us together
We should do a 20th team location thread some day.
Seems like one of those if fun every six months or so.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
