http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/aug/01/mls-expansion-four-teams-2020-24?CMP=twt_gu

Commissioner Don Garber's All-Star game announcement that MLS wants to expand to 24 teams for the 2020 season puts potential owners around the country on alert



[my personal hope] -

quote:

---

San Antonio, Texas is another possibility — the Scorpions NASL team has been a successful launch and they have a neat scaleable stadium that currently holds 8000, but can be expanded to 18,000. And again, senior MLS figures have been quoted as saying the league is looking seriously in Texas.

---

Cool, but I would rather see a 2. MLS or some sort (not NASL) so we can have a promotion/relegation system. Not now, but in 2020 if the sport continues to grow and the financial side makes sense, I feel like that could be a better alternative than two conferences of 12 teams.

I think that having promotion/demotion would be awesome

1. Orlando
2. Miami

-----

After that, I'm hoping for St. Louis and San Antonio. St Louis needs an owner, San Antonio might not have all the expansion cash necessary and it's a smaller TV market.

I think Atlanta has a chance, although I'm not a fan of the proposed ownership group and housing it in the NFL stadium. Minnesota also has a chance, also would be in an NFL stadium. Sacramento and San Diego both want teams but I'd be pissed if Cali got another. If anything, relocate Chivas to one of those cities (although I still see substantial value in having 2 LA teams).

Carolina could get a team but they're on the outside looking in. Indy/Detroit are still too far away at this point, don't think they'll be ready for a team.

And of course, there are the Canadian wildcards, but I'd rather focus on expansion in America personally.

I don't understand how Orlando is everyone's first choice. They're
USL, isn't NASL considered higher tier than USL?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/news/20130801/mls-all-star-game-expansion/?sct=hp_wr_a1&eref=sihp

Orlando has high attendance in a crap division, a committed ownership group, and is about to unveil plans for a soccer-specific stadium. That's all you can ask for.

Basically the same reasons that San Antonio should get a team, but Orlando has more money and is a larger market. Oh, and the Southeast has no teams and you get people complaining about Texas having 3 (even though it's a ****ing massive and diverse state, as we all know).

Don't know that I can see Orlando and Miami getting one, though it wouldn't surprise me too much, either. I'd prefer Orlando because I hate Miami.

What about Boston? I'm kind of surprised they haven't tried to play up the NYC vs Boston thing.

quote:

---

What about Boston?

---

I would like to introduce you to the New England Revolution, founding team in the MLS.


1. Orlando-great support and ownership, stadium in place
2. St. Louis- Have to get them a team
3. Miami- With Beckham's backing they will have a team
4. San Antonio- Good structure in place.

Uh...New England Revolution? I don't think they play that up because NE plays in a crap stadium with crap support.

Miami will happen. I don't know that it will be a huge success but it will happen.

Either Orlando or Atlanta will happen. Perhaps both but if no other great options exist but I think it will be one or the other. Right now, I would say Orlando because they seem to have their crap together and I can't think of any negatives if they can get their MLS stadium funded. Only thing that really seems to be going for Atlanta is their huge TV market.

St. Louis has been long desired but I don't know that I've ever heard anything related to serious ownership or serious stadium plans. Seems to be a stretch.

I think San Antonio has a pretty good chance. Not a huge TV market but if the league is really trying to cultivate regional rivalries, you have 2 built in rivals in Houston and Dallas. A sort of southern version of the PNW (though not as intense probably). Other than the TV market, they seem to have all that you could ask for.

I'll say Orlando, Miami, San Antonio and some mystery team that comes out of nowhere that's not named Atlanta or St. Louis.

...Crap...

In my defense...screw it, I got nothin'. Sorry...

Affix the cone of shame

Rochester/Buffalo area might be a wild card.

Your cone of shame will be to watch all NE home games for the remainder of the year.

Not to derail the thread, but can someone explain to me how pro/rel would make sense in ANY financial situation?

quote:

---

Your cone of shame will be to watch all NE home games for the remainder of the year.

---

hardly a punishment to watch ***undez and agudelo do work

really hope they can get a stadium deal soon

quote:

---

Not to derail the thread, but can someone explain to me how pro/rel would make sense in ANY financial situation?

---

It adds considerable risk!

I suppose MLS finances would have to change, but it makes it more exciting, I think. And when Chivas USA has been in last or 2nd to last place each year for the last few years, it would get rid of the bottom dwellers.

I agree it would make it more exciting as a fan but as an owner, there would be no way I would allow it because it would never make financial sense. And for that reason, I don't think it will ever happen.

quote:

---

Not to derail the thread, but can someone explain to me how pro/rel would make sense in ANY financial situation?

---

It doesn't. What I think we will see is an NFL type schedule where you play everyone in your conference twice (NFL plays their division twice) and everyone else once (they play another whole division, 4 games with an NFC and 4 with an AFC). That is the only situation I can see feasible.

There is no way MLS or any other new league will go pro/rel. Pro/Rel was okay for Europe when all the teams were older than dirt and the league was composed of all the teams 1st tier to 5th tier. No way can you make it work when starting a new league and getting owners to invest into a new league.

We'll never get ***undez to play for the Stars and Stripes if TexAgs censors his name.

quote:

---

It doesn't. What I think we will see is an NFL type schedule where you play everyone in your conference twice (NFL plays their division twice) and everyone else once (they play another whole division, 4 games with an NFC and 4 with an AFC). That is the only situation I can see feasible.

---

That's what's being thought of when it goes to 24. 22 games against your conference opponents, 12 games against the other conference.

The real question is will MLS eventually expand to that 28-32 realm that the other leagues have? If so, you'd essentially have to go to an old MLB model. You play everyone in your conference twice (so let's say 30 games if you have 32 teams) and never play the other conference until playoffs/MLS Cup.

Eagerly clicked this thread hoping to read that Dallas was getting a team.

quote:

---

Eagerly clicked this thread hoping to read that Dallas was getting a team.

---

Cue Gordo..

I would immediately adopt any San Antonio team that was to form.

Would love to have a place downtown-ish to attend games

quote:

---

I would immediately adopt any San Antonio team that was to form.

Would love to have a place downtown-ish to attend games

---

you should support the scorpions regardless. And if they made it to MLS, the stadium would merely be expanded, they wouldn't change locations/build a new one.

Scorpions

And, the scorpions stadium is very nice. Just wish it was closer

[This message has been edited by who?mikejones (edited 8/1/2013 10:42p).]

quote:

---

Eagerly clicked this thread hoping to read that Dallas was getting a team.

---

I doubt Dallas will ever get a team...SA will get one before the big D.

quote:

---

Eagerly clicked this thread hoping to read that Dallas was getting a team.

---

Dallas didn't want the Rangers or even the Cowboys... they sure as **** don't want a soccer team.

FC Frisco for life!!!

Great SI article on Orlando and their MLS aspirations:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/news/20130801/orlando-city-expansion-mls/?sct=sc_t1t_a1

Frisco.