|
|
Post by Drillbit Taylor on Apr 30, 2009 23:35:35 GMT -5
To continue my threads I am going to jump to one less popular leagues. Major League Soccer  What would you change to make the MLS better? Would you add more teams? Relocate some? Remove some? Establish big names? Have more coverage on TV? There is a lot that can be done to help MLS. What would make it an ideal league? Past ones NFLNHL |
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on Apr 30, 2009 23:49:10 GMT -5
For once, I'm NOT going to say make a team in Oklahoma.
Not because I hate football(soccer) or anything like that(I love it), but I don't think it would be financially successful in Oklahoma.
|
|
|
|
Post by VenomFang on May 1, 2009 7:13:55 GMT -5
I think they are on the right track so far. They have expansion teams in Philadelphia, Portland and Vancouver coming up. If you read the MLS boards looks like St. Louis is a strong favorite for the 19th team and 20th team will be Montreal probably. Of course struggling current teams like Dallas or DC if they dont get a new stadium could always be located.
As for quality of the league, I dont think they will ever get the best players in the world anytime soon. As of now they can get a few stars in their early 30's like Beckham but no one in their prime is seriously thinking about coming over here unless they get paid accordingly and that wont happen because theres a salary cap and stuf but each team is allowed one designated player( DP) though but most of those guys are past it a bit.
Bottom line is that we have too many sports already in the US for this league to be taken seriously by the masses and the soccer community in the US is pretty small and soccers still a niche sport here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on May 1, 2009 10:55:16 GMT -5
I think they are on the right track so far. They have expansion teams in Philadelphia, Portland and Vancouver coming up. If you read the MLS boards looks like St. Louis is a strong favorite for the 19th team and 20th team will be Montreal probably. Of course struggling current teams like Dallas or DC if they dont get a new stadium could always be located. As for quality of the league, I dont think they will ever get the best players in the world anytime soon. As of now they can get a few stars in their early 30's like Beckham but no one in their prime is seriously thinking about coming over here unless they get paid accordingly and that wont happen because theres a salary cap and stuf but each team is allowed one designated player( DP) though but most of those guys are past it a bit. Bottom line is that we have too many sports already in the US for this league to be taken seriously by the masses and the soccer community in the US is pretty small and soccers still a niche sport here. Which is ironic, considering the majority of US people are descendants from countries that love soccer. |
|
|
|
Post by Loki on May 1, 2009 11:37:18 GMT -5
Give it time, without pressing the PANIC button, without relying on washed-up stars [NASL had luckly taught a lesson or two].
Then the most vital thing is: NO RELOCATIONS EVER.
Every team should slowly but steadly become part of the sporting life of the city, so over the years, it could "belong" to the city and to its people.
Moreso, I think they should get rid of the "NFL league system".
Soccer isn't a "closed circuit" sport anywhere in the world [at least not to my knowledge], so I don't see a valid reason why it should be different in the States.
So far the USL1/USL2 system has failed miserably, seeing how little impact it has had on MLS itself...
It was supposed to be a Lower League System, like in the rest of the soccer world, but it turned out to be more or less a Minor League System, where teams can't (or don't want or can't afford to) get promoted to the superior division.
Basically, I think MLS is doomed to stay in that limbo.
Soccer has no tradition in the U.S., and not even the best structured league in the world could change that.
Soccer thrives on having its roots deeply planted in the social environment, and that's the reason crappy teams still have huge followings in Europe/South America, despite poor results.
All in all, I can't see how a franchise created as a business enterprise can reach the level of popularity of a team "born and raised" in a specific city, town or even neighbourhood.
MK Dons anyone?
|
|
Dave at the Movies
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
VINTAGE D-DAY DAVE! Always cranking dat thing.
Posts: 18,224
|
Post by Dave at the Movies on May 1, 2009 11:40:04 GMT -5
Soccer is like the only sport Kansas City has had a good team in in like the past ten years. I think they have made the playoffs just about every year. They are even building a new small stadium for them instead of playing at Chiefs Arrow Head Stadium.
I haven't been to a game in a long time but damn are soccer fans rowdy. Who would have thought that soccer fans were the rowdiest. lol
|
|
MolotovMocktail
Grimlock
Home of the 5-time, 5-time, 5-time, 5-time 5-time Super Bowl Champion 49ers-and Wrestlemania 31
Posts: 13,976
|
Post by MolotovMocktail on May 1, 2009 14:20:32 GMT -5
I'd stick to the traditional "City, Nickname" format for all teams. Names like "FC Dallas", "Real Salt Lake," and "DC United" tend to confuse fans who aren't familiar with soccer, and how teams in Europe and Latin America are named.
|
|
|
|
Post by Loki on May 1, 2009 15:03:37 GMT -5
I'd stick to the traditional "City, Nickname" format for all teams. Names like "FC Dallas", "Real Salt Lake," and "DC United" tend to confuse fans who aren't familiar with soccer, and how teams in Europe and Latin America are named. Actually I think the "City+Nickname" should be avoided at any cost. First, because most names are already taken by NFL/NBA/NHL/MLB/College teams, and having a duplicated name would confuse people even more. Then because the key to MLS enjoying some sort of popularity is being DIFFERENT from all the other American Sports, and similar to the rest of the soccer world. Keep the nickname for supporters or players, but the official/common name should not sound out of place in an hypothetical Champions League game... Eg. Barcelona FC v FC Dallas is fine. Chelsea FC v San Jose Earthquakes sounds like a mismatch to me Some sort of "intersport" meeting. P.S. I can't imagine the horror of watching Manchester Red Devils v London Blues... |
|
|
|
Post by Drillbit Taylor on May 1, 2009 15:16:32 GMT -5
I'd stick to the traditional "City, Nickname" format for all teams. Names like "FC Dallas", "Real Salt Lake," and "DC United" tend to confuse fans who aren't familiar with soccer, and how teams in Europe and Latin America are named. Actually I think the "City+Nickname" should be avoided at any cost. First, because most names are already taken by NFL/NBA/NHL/MLB/College teams, and having a duplicated name would confuse people even more. Then because the key to MLS enjoying some sort of popularity is being DIFFERENT from all the other American Sports, and similar to the rest of the soccer world. Keep the nickname for supporters or players, but the official/common name should not sound out of place in an hypothetical Champions League game... Eg. Barcelona FC v FC Dallas is fine. Chelsea FC v San Jose Earthquakes sounds like a mismatch to me Some sort of "intersport" meeting. P.S. I can't imagine the horror of watching Manchester Red Devils v London Blues... Well Houston would be named a year if it were not for some people bitching. 1836 sounds better than Dynamo |
|
Dave at the Movies
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
VINTAGE D-DAY DAVE! Always cranking dat thing.
Posts: 18,224
|
Post by Dave at the Movies on May 1, 2009 15:23:09 GMT -5
Kansas City's soccer team is called The Wizards............whoooo..........i guess
|
|
MolotovMocktail
Grimlock
Home of the 5-time, 5-time, 5-time, 5-time 5-time Super Bowl Champion 49ers-and Wrestlemania 31
Posts: 13,976
|
Post by MolotovMocktail on May 1, 2009 23:05:44 GMT -5
It's a step up from their original nickname: the Wiz.
|
|
bob
Salacious Crumb
The "other" Bob. FOC COURSE!
started the Madness Wars, Proudly the #1 Nana Hater on FAN
Posts: 78,486
|
Post by bob on May 2, 2009 0:40:45 GMT -5
no teams in the United States of America....it just doesn't draw crowds for some reason
instead the teams should be in markets where soccer can draw big crowds like say South America and Europe
|
|
|
|
Post by Drillbit Taylor on May 2, 2009 0:43:34 GMT -5
no teams in the United States of America....it just doesn't draw crowds for some reason instead the teams should be in markets where soccer can draw big crowds like say South America and Europe Dynamo draws big crowds. From both the Hispanics and Whites. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2009 9:52:24 GMT -5
In a country where the term "soccer mom" was invented, how can MLS not be one of the larger sports leagues in the country? Answer: ignorance. Here are some of the stigmas associated with soccer in America:
-Soccer has no action.
-They just run all day.
-Scores are too low.
-Can't touch the ball with your hands or arms.
-Guys in shorts: all gay.
-Players are all from other countries. (The Vince Russo excuse.)
You find a way to break that stigma against soccer, the US would love it.
I like what MLS is doing: taking small steps forward without going too fast. Give the league a generation to succeed. If memory serves me right, the NASL only lasted 14-15 years, and they crashed hard at the end. No TV deal, nobody came to the games.
MLS has deals with ESPN, ABC and Fox Soccer Channel.
The smaller stadiums make it a whole lot better. You're not watching (many) games on TV where you're thinking - even with 15,000 in the stands at a 70,000 seat football stadium - "nobody's going to these games". MLS helped create the smaller capacity arenas because they're smart enough to know it's still a niche sport.
Don't over-expand. Keep it small and manageable. Keep the salary cap.
MLS is doing more in its limited appeal than the bigger sports do with wide-spread marketing. Not over-extending yourself is a good way to stick around.
|
|
|
|
Post by KingPopper on May 6, 2009 20:38:02 GMT -5
Put a team in Detroit.
|
|
