|
soccer, it is, back
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 01:19 |
|
|
There have been 30 goals scored for or against in Minnesota's 5 matches so far. The next highest is 18. I'm gonna watch all the Minnesota matches
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
Houston Home Form: 26 out of 30 points 28 GF 9 GA Houston Away Form: 2 out of 27 points 6 GF 24 GA 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
moving teams is poo poo but austin would be a very very good mls market if they built something downtownish there
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
haha wellquote:Local sources on Monday told The Dispatch that Precourt is frustrated with the Crew’s declining revenues and poor attendance figures and is strongly considering a franchise move to Austin. Earlier this year, Major League Soccer registered “Austin FC” and “Austin Athletic” as trademarks of the league.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
Columbus owner Anthony Precourt is set to announce in a press conference on Tuesday that he will move his team to Austin in 2019 if a downtown soccer stadium for the Crew cannot be finalized in the next year. yikes
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
i think this is super lovely for columbus fans but i also think the team moving to austin is better for MLS and will likely be extremely successful.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
all-Rush mixtape posted:http://kxan.com/2017/10/17/soccer-club-outlines-wishlist-for-potential-austin-location/ thats probably the single best place to put a stadium in austin
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
wicka posted:Recognizing that promotion/relegation is a requirement, regardless of MLS' innumerable fuckups to date, is part of having a serious conversation about improving the league. It just isn't though. I'd prefer it all things being equal but there is absolutely no reason why MLS MUST implement relegation and promotion, none whatsoever. And there is absolutely no reason the league cannot continue to improve without it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
has anyone looked at what happens to MLS attendance when teams are bad for a season or 3? What do you think happens when they're relegated? edit: this isn't specific to MLS, its true in all U.S. leagues. People don't go to games if their team is bad. G-Hawk fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Oct 19, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Feels Villeneuve posted:I mean if the stereotype is that MLS fans don't actually care about the on-field product is true it shouldn't matter if Toronto FC is playing NYCFC or if they're playing the Carolina Railhawks or whatever i don't think that stereotype is true at all
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Feels Villeneuve posted:one of the entire points of the J-League moving to their current structure was to encourage people to start professional soccer clubs. You know what discourages people from starting pro soccer teams? A $100 million dollar franchise fee. On the other hand it encourages people to start clubs who have the financial capability of keeping those clubs going and a long term plan. You know what leagues don't have that barrier to entry? USL, NASL, etc. You know where clubs routinely fold after a couple seasons? USL, NASL, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
Feels Villeneuve posted:I think you have a far more generous outlook on people who will spend $100 million dollars on a team in a league that loses lots of money than you probably should. and yet in the multi decade history of soccer leagues and teams in the United States, MLS is the only league that has ever managed to be stable, and majority of its clubs have been stable. Every single other league has been a mess, teams folding every year. With the exception of Chivas USA which was a dumb as poo poo idea, MLS hasn't had a team fold in 15 years. USL has multiple teams fold every season. Regardless of idealized league structures, MLS has found a way to stablize and slowly improve. Its quite easy to point out problems with it and ways it could possibly be better, but I think the obsession with promotion and relegation loses perspective over the fact that if MLS were to cease to exist, there wouldn't be a similar league with promotion and relegation replacing it. Instead you'd get leagues that look exactly like NASL/USL and every league before them, unstable messes that have absolutely no ability to financially sustain real youth development. How is that productive? edit: TLDR MLS critics severely underrate the value of stability which is pretty much the foundational goal of MLS. MLS clubs ARE developing youth academies, right now. The only reason they can do that is they are stable. MLS fan bases are becoming more entrenched, passionate. History and real rivalries are developing. Not withstanding MLS often being hamfisted and creating artificial bullshit, the stability of MLS is allowing everything you want to develop, slowly. G-Hawk fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Oct 19, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
Feels Villeneuve posted:There's a term for a money-losing investment scheme which stays afloat by finding more and more dumb rich people to buy into it, and I'm pretty sure it's not "stable". Well, good thing they've been taking positive steps to be less reliant on expansion fees! This includes: - building their own stadiums to increase revenues and reduce gameday expenses - acquiring big name players to increase TV ratings and tv revenue (expansion itself will help increase these TV deals by giving the league a more national footprint) - developing more young players they can potentially sell for significant transfer fees They are building a league capable of sustaining itself financially and are way ahead of where they were 10 much less 20 years ago. Theres a reason why people are lining up to buy expansion teams quicker than Garber can give them out. quote:e) the charitable thing to say is that they're loss-leading until they land a big money TV deal but there's no guarantee they can get this, and no guarantee that they can continue to get people to buy in indefinitely G-Hawk fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Oct 19, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
Gigi Galli posted:That does actually make me wonder which, if any, MLS teams are profitable. Are there any? probably yes, though its all estimates. Forbes has about half of the clubs being profitable in this estimate from 2016, though that doesnt account for debts. https://www.forbes.com/sites/chriss...2/#5f753b6d4d6e
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
in terms of profitability long term the holy grail is increasing TV ratings to increase TV deals. Expansion is actually a big part of this, getting more people invested in the league. The problem is MLS doesnt need more soccer fans to get higher ratings, they need more MLS fans. Probably the best way to do that is for more people to have a local team they get attached to. If you just want to watch the best soccer, you turn on premier league, not MLS. So expansion is pretty critical to increasing ratings. So are stadiums, and attendance. Combine that with acquiring better players (such as the south americans mentioned by other posters), a few big names (the scorned washed up euros), and increasing youth development so that MLS has more young and exciting stars, as well as time so that people who attended MLS matches at age 15 are still watching at age 35, and thats pretty much the path to financial success.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
GOOD TIMES ON METH posted:MLS would be much better off if FC Cincinnati and their 20k+ crowds were in MLS next year by getting promoted or whatever. As opposed to some expansion process that will take years and squander all local excitement by requiring the team step on the throats of local government to get a stadium paid for that they can not afford to build along with the expansion fee. Recent expansion team attendance averages this season: (2011-2017 expansion teams) Atlanta: 46,721 (capacity) Minnesota: 20,538 Orlando: 25,028 (capacity) New York City: 22,459 Montreal: 20,006 (Capacity) Portland: 21,144 (capacity) Vancouver: 21,416 Or, 7 of the top 11 attendance averages in MLS. I don't really think they are squandering local excitement. (I'm not saying I'm opposed to Cincinatti, either. But its hard to argue recent expansion has been anything but a success)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
African AIDS cum posted:Attendance numbers include tickets they give away for free and people who dont show up. Fraud numbers. so does every other pro league, but this is much less of an issue with MLS numbers than it used to be. You can also look at season ticket holder numbers and waiting lists, though. also, distributing a small amount of free tickets to youth is good, and cool
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
Your Boy Fancy posted:And yet the fees have gone up, so how are they less reliant? New teams are playing in football stadiums they don’t own, and NYCFC just played in loving Hartford. The needle hasn’t moved on ratings, and now the US have crashed out of the World Cup. The youth aren’t getting sold on - they’re going out of contract and playing in loving Denmark. And instead of trying to improve fortunes, teams are scrapping marketing to save money before vanishing or relocating. the fees have gone up because demand has gone up. Why wouldn't they? They have a dozen+ potential cities to expand to. If you asked for a $150 million expansion fee in 2005 everyone would have told you to gently caress off. Now they're lining up to pay it. NYCFC is a problem, yeah. The previous post was correct ratings are fighting against declining ratings across all u.s. television. Academies have in many cases only existed a few years, those that have existed longer and established younger programs are producing. I never said everything about MLS is perfect, but I think its completely absurd to think the league hasn't made significant progress. 10 years ago if you told me MLS looked like this, I'd be thrilled.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
Dirk Pitt posted:And yet the league can’t produce a group of players capable of winning the hexagonal in CONCACAF. Your league is a joke and a blight with its dumb requirements. sure it can, it just wasn't set up to do so 10 much less 20 years ago, when it would have affected qualifying now. MLS didn't even start 'producing" players until recently, and its good they're developing the academy structure instead of relying on NCAA soccer. I look forward to seeing the national team in the next few years fill up with players produced by MLS academies or European academies, and not a bunch of NCAA players who didn't join a professional club until their 20s. The national team basically relied on one academy in the entire country (Bradenton) and a few standouts who made it to Europe to carry it for 2 decades, but now there are numerous domestic academies (some MLS, some not) and Americans are joining academies in Europe at younger ages. Maybe MLS should have done this in 1996, but they didn't. Academies started a decade ago and are only really now being fully built out and starting to have classes who have been in the system for multiple years. What everyone thinks needs to happen with youth development is happening, it just started later than it probably should have and takes longer than anyone wants. edit: To add, the USMNT roster that crashed out: 14 of 25 played college soccer. I don't think we'll ever see a USMNT in qualifying again where the majority played NCAA soccer, and thats a very good thing. 6 others were IMG/Brandenton. Those that were neither: Jorge Villafana Tim Howard Kellyn Acosta Bobby Wood Christian Pulisic Howard who is done, Villafana who is meh, and probably the 3 players from last month with the most future in the national team. (Along with Arriola, who was at IMG but also did a bit of time at a MLS academy). G-Hawk fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Oct 19, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
For one last thing on that point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_FIFA_U-17_World_Cup_squads#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_FIFA_U-17_World_Cup_squads#.C2.A0United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_FIFA_U-17_World_Championship_squads#.C2.A0United_States Compare where the kids on the u17 team right now are playing compared to the team 6 years ago, much less 12. The majority of the current team are playing either in a MLS team, academy or a European academy, with a couple exceptions. They're already in a professional structure. 2005 looks like a whos who of pay to play youth programs that fed into college soccer. Its a big difference.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
African AIDS cum posted:Uh these MLS academies are garbage though, many kids on the Timbers one quit to play high school soccer because at least the outcome is better. There are multiple players on this list who quit or declined to join it Good point, for many teenagers going to college is probably more realistic and a better outcome than becoming a professional soccer player. Although I think portland is considered one of the shittier in MLS
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
Shrapnig posted:And yet they're still a better route to developing into a professional soccer player than the NCAA. yeah this. rome wasn't built in a day and all
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
XBenedict posted:Austin is the X factor. Texas Football is probably all they can draw a crowd for. They've never really had much interest in any pro sports. Too many transplants, too many hippies.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 01:19 |
|
|
Gegil posted:As much as I'd love to have season tickets to a local club, unless they have covered seating, I won't go more than once during June to September. i feel like night games would be tolerable there, but i never minded the heat in austin that much
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2017 22:37
|
|