Blame Canada I
"Toronto likely to receive MLS franchise! Local citizens pray it won't be the Wizards, while folks in Montreal cite this as further reason why Quebec must be independent!" Hey, if they can field a franchise that is remotely successful fincially speaking and matches the league avg for attendance, then it's a step in the right direction. As a niche sport I've long advocated the league needed attractive products on the field moreso than the idea of having "X" big markets being represented. And while I'm not jumping for joy that MLSE will be operating the franchise (supposedly) I'm more aghast at how the Canadian government, which was once at least a model for efficient action if not wise thinking, seemed to botch this stadium arrangment at nearly every turn, despite having landed the FIFA tournament it so desperately wanted and pledging this structure to be the jewel of the event!

...and still the one in Vancouver may end up looking much, much better!

Blame Canada II
Toronto's pending arrival suggests that Rochester will be snubbed... again. Moreover, the absence of another owner/operator stepping forward for another entrant means that MLS may indeed run with 13 teams for a year or two. How quaint! Yet given that adding the Toronto franchise will likely not have a huge impact on TV $ and will lead to some challenging scheduling, you'd think MLS would be more patient to ensure that every action is not only value added but part of a much larger equation. Garber's been doing well so far, but this seems reactionary rather than progressive.

Don't blink!
In what may be the shortest article ESPN.com will ever associate itself with:


That's the entire article, folks! But amazingly this exhuastive research missed critical questions that must be answered!
- Will they buy Colorado to maintain the rivalry with Real-wannabes Salt Lake? If not...
- ...then the obvious choice is Utah's cultural cousin Idaho! Boise-lona, anyone?!
- Can the US marketing machine do anything to improve upon Ronaldinho's fugly mug shot?

Prettyboys 1, Chowda 0
Proof positive the league needs to introduce new coaches from a wider pool of candidates than previously seen: Offensive strategy is non-existent in MLS. The list of globally-popular European super powers that regularly employ a strong defense and counter attack mentality is quite deep (Chelsea, Juve...), so it's understandable that teams looking for W's might try to follow suit. But anyone confusing the MLS Cup final with a CL showdown between Arsenal and Milan would recognize that the American clubs base their entire offensive attck on the base skills of their athletes. And notice none of these strikers is being lured away to higher paying gigs across the pond!

Transition was a default of clearing the ball away from one's goal, not the intended action to exploit an opponent's weakness. Attacks were not consistent in direction, pace, or targeting. I realize Landon Donovan is something of a personality for the league, but does that mean the LA coaching staff doesn't tel him what to do?

I lamented MLS's modest start as a missed opportunity to foster a deeper pool of full time soccer players. It appears the same goes for quality coaching.

Well, it's official: The San Jose Earthquakes no longer exist as the franchise is moving to Houston. Congrats to Houston and I hope they draw well. My sympathies to San Jose fans. My ire to AEG, Spartan Shops and to MLS for not becoming better champions of public relations.

Whatever money AEG lost recently probably could've been spent on the stadium earlier if they simply stepped up to the plate. I'm solidly in belief the financial results would've looked much better today, and heaven knows the public opinion of the league would be light years better.

The ESPN columns are spot on: Pro soccer has this incredible ability to shoot itself in the foot so often it's not even funny anymore.

Nobody can wrestle free land out of San Jose. On to Houston.

Meanwhile, The Oregonian decides to throw their annual wink at "MLStoPDX," or more to the point, the lack of an effort...

http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/sports/113677711046990.xml&coll=7

BTW, Gunner, good blog about the Timbers (and by extension the Portland soccer community), from within Timbers Army, no less:

http://www.oregonlive.com/weblogs/timbersblog/

Will MLS (someday in the future) have at least 20 or 24 teams? If so, here is the following scheduling:

a) - 20-team league

Each conference has 2 divisions with 5 teams each.

2 games * 19 other teams = 38

Total: 38 games

b) - 24-team league

Each conference has 2 divisions with 6 teams each.

2 games * 5 teams (conference/intra-divisional) = 10
2 games * 6 teams (conference/inter-divisional) = 12
1 game * 12 teams (non-conference) = 12

Total: 34 games

_________________
Florida State Seminole fan for life (mostly on football, basketball and baseball)!

The real question: will core MLS fans be able to cajole the league into being more of a European model?

No more than 20 teams, 38-game home-and-home schedule.

I think Gunner knows enough about bigsoccer.com to at least note the argument that happens there.

It might happen in the future, you know.

_________________
Florida State Seminole fan for life (mostly on football, basketball and baseball)!

Update time:

San Jose Earthquakes moved, the team announced "Houston 1836" as its name, which torqued off the Hispanic fan base, so Houston- last week- announced another change to the, um, Hispanic-friendly "Houston Dynamo."

Not to be outdone, the MetroStars are no more.

http://redbull.newyork.mlsnet.com/MLS/rbn/

You could decry "Red Bull New York" if you thought "MetroStars" (for Metromedia) was somehow an organic name, but the sentiment perhaps deserves to exist to say a loud, hearty "WTF?".

There's good news in this one... Red Bull buys the team for $50 million. The sponsor name on the stadium adds funds to the cause of getting the new stadium done. That's one less team in the paws of AEG, who just have to unload Houston and Chicago (or LA, which we doubt) to get one step closer to ending single entity madness.

Red Bulls which they have on the website doesnt sound that bad.

Just when rumors of expansion in Cleveland were heating up, here comes "Philadelphia"...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/soccer/03/16/bc.soc.mls.rowan.ap/index.html

I should wait for a Monday announcement, because I'm curious to find if this is BS, not to mention other details (will Rowan's football team play there?)... but us soccer fans are an impatient lot.

Hmmm, it's been two years since I posted to this thread... the last post, wouldn't you know it. A curse on whomever chased GunnerFan away (unless it's a spouse).

Then, I was talking about a Philadelphia expansion. That all croaked, everything went flat for a bit, then one David Beckham kind of raised the bar on the sweepstakes...

...and now back to Philadelphia.

http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20080228&content_id=140965&vkey=pr_mls&fext=.jsp

2010 is the target, the stadium is another one that's probably too far out of town, but the funding for the stadium is set, and this looks solid... check that, the organization has Nick Sackiewicz involved. What the #### are they thinking? Sack rendered the old Metros to consistent mediocrity.

Other updates, just in case anyone's curious...

San Jose got an expansion replacement kicking off this year. A's owner Lew Wolff is the owner of the Earthquakes, and they're playing at a temporarily expanded Buck Shaw Stadium (Santa Clara University campus) until an arrangement is made, very likely on property near Mineta San Jose Airport (chances of this coming off sound very good).

Kansas City was a moving candidate, and are having to play at Community America Ballpark (home of independent baseball's KC T-Bones) on the Kansas side of the Missouri because of renovations to Arrowhead... but they appear to be bailed out by a stadium with state funding all but assured on an abandoned mall site south of Kansas City.

S**ttle, of all people, have been awarded a franchise to begin in 2009. Paul Allen seems to have walked in with partial ownership in exchange for the team playing at Qwest Field (where the Seahawks play). Drew Carey is a minority owner, and has proved his clown-ness by desiring the team have its own marching band. Poor saps.

Besides Philadelphia, there are thought to be two slots available for near term expansion before MLS "cools their heels" for a bit... though I doubt they'd pass up more expansion money. St. Louis actually has suburban stadium funding, but MLS apparently believes the ownership group is underfunded. My beloved Portland even has the current Timbers owner seeking to get a new AAA ballpark built in order to free PGE Park for MLS availability. Miami seems to have conditionally approved funds for a soccer stadium next to the baseball stadium apparently approved for the Orange Bowl site. Vancouver and Montreal are now in the conversation (Montreal will have a new expandable stadium this year for the USL Impact, Vancouver has one heck of a design on the drawing boards virtually IN Burrard Inlet), Phoenix, Atlanta, New York City, San Diego, Minneapolis... I believe I'm missing more. You're invited to fill in the blanks.

MLS followed up on last week's announcement that two expansion teams will be admitted to the league with a 2011 target opening. Today, they announced a process where bids will be accepted by October 15, and the decision will be rendered sometime between then and the end of March 2009.

Vancouver had already submitted a bid. Portland submitted today.

St. Louis and Montreal are the other front-runners in the race.

Atlanta, Las Vegas, Miami, New York City, and Ottawa are thought to be in consideration, based on Don Garber's comments. I forget if any of these towns submitted a bid beforehand. Miami's possible stadium funding has already been pulled back, a Vegas stadium/casino proposal has lost steam, Ottawa isn't given much chance, and Atlanta requires more help from Arthur Blank than they'll probably get. Mets owner Fred Wilpon is considered to be kicking tires around a soccer stadium near the new Mets ballpark, but isn't expected to follow through.

Thursday night. Portland, Oregon. PGE Park. Portland Timbers v S**ttle Sounders.







Hey, to heck that I'm promoting the Timbers to MLS. Timbers matches and the Timbers Army are something not to miss. I'll buy you a beer or two if you give me advance notice.

Last month I went to a Chicago Fire game: definitely worth it! The MLS has a plan for sensible growth, and I think this league will be around for a long time. As for expansion, we already know number 15 (Seattle) and number 16 (Philadelphia). Someone had an idea that a Detroit-based team would be one of the next expansion teams, using the site of the old Tiger Stadium, but I believe that plan was nixed. Knowing the problems that Detroit is facing, MLS should be on their back burner for now.

The overall growth of MLS has been positive but very slow. I REALLY would have loved to have seen the US have a single team in a European league. The idea being have one team, with sponsorship, participate in a league, perhaps giving up some home games for travel concerns. Ideally, it would be 3/5 of the games on the road with 2/5 at home. The US games would then be in various cities to build up an American fanbase for the sport on a larger level. More Americans would watch a single team on TV, and then individual cities could host games such as NY, LA, Chicago, Dallas, SF, Philly, Boston, Miami, Houston, etc. Then, once the momentum builds, the US could have launched MLS. Just an idea whos time has passed.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

What league would take on an American team?

With promotion and relegation, nobody's giving up a spot. The travel involved truly sucks, even if it's 40% at home.

Just saying that idea was a non-starter on multiple levels.