LaGrandeOrange

2 hours ago, Digby said:

The other benefit to 40 -- and this has never seemed to be a rumor, only speculation from online people, but it does make a lot of sense to me -- is that it would allow for MLS to form two tiers with pro/rel between them, but not outside of them. Is this likely to happen? I kinda doubt it, I think there are more "against" than "for" reasons that I can think of, even when I put on my cynical capitalist suit as a thought exercise. But I would never totally rule out MLS doing the sort of thing that looks like "traditional world football" on the surface but is actually the Mickey Mouse version.

A big part of the high team valuations in MLS as opposed to in Europe is that there is no relegation, so I feel like even relegation to an MLS 2 is an...unlikely result, unless it's some sort of soft relegation where MLS 1 gets 12 playoff spots and MLS 2 gets 4 or something.

I have heard the MLS/Liga MX merger rumours, and at that point it starts getting crazy- again it seems unlikely the MLS owners would consent to relegation so how do they break the league down beyond essentially a series of regional leagues with one large playoff (which is functionally what CONCACAF competitions are now anyway)?

As a person whose only two real rooting interests in major pro sport are NHL and MLS teams, I really am tired of "best sport/worst league" behaviour!

40 minutes ago, FrutigerAero said:

Why 40 teams?

I've seen this number a few times, and a lot of it seems to be built on the subtext that MLS's financials seem to rely somewhat heavily on these expansion fees. That said, the sky is kind of the limit for MLS- the "big 4" have a somewhat finite player pool, but MLS could probably easily get to 40 teams with minimal talent drain.

It does seem like a string of Messi-esque (obviously there's only one Messi) stars is just sort of the plan going forward. The expansion money will have to dry up sometime, they have to keep it going somehow.

Is this that big of an event? It feels like an easy way to deal with fixture congestion is to get rid of this (aside from another opportunity to squeeze some money from Messi). The irony is not really lost on me that the US loves to play Mexico in Columbus in order to not has many Mexican fans...except the Liga MX team is probably the bigger draw (Messi excluded)?

5 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/68433101

Ronaldo banned one game for making hand gestures at fans who chanted "Messi" after he beat then 3-2 on the weekend.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/68436828

Paul Pogba four year ban upheld. Not sure if CAS can knock it down a bit, but even if it's 2 years it could all but end his career. He's 29 and 4 years out of organized soccer won't help him. 

What a frustrating career- never should have left Juventus.

3 hours ago, FrutigerAero said:

What more cities should push for is to stipulate that a team's payroll is in the top 1/3 of the league, or that at least 3,000 seats must be priced below a certain price point, etc. etc.?  People clearly want these teams, or else all these cities wouldn't be doing the funding.  So just own it!

 

For historical perspective, Dodger Stadium has always had 56,000 seats because of some sort of deal when the Dodgers moved in. 

I'd definitely be more amenable with something like this, although the payroll only really works for MLB/NBA.

46 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Is San Pedro not a natural harbour?

 

(Side note: the pronunciation "San Pidro" annoys me.)

Do you listen to the Minutemen enough that you encounter it that often?

16 minutes ago, Lights Out said:

Just a quick idea I had trying to combine the San Diego colors and the unused '90s colors with the new logo:

 

 

I liked the one on the left better first, but now I'm starting to prefer the sublety of how the seafoam green and light blue almost blend into each other in the one on the right.

Probably a little too much for a permanent logo but both are cool colourways for a one-off or for merch.

19 hours ago, throwuascenario said:

I don't think that publicly financed stadiums are always a bad decision. Just usually.

 

If a team provides a crucial piece of the city's identity, I think it makes sense to pay to keep them. The StL Cardinals. Any NHL team in Canada. The Lakers. The Chiefs. The Bills.

 

Teams that are one of the first things that comes to mind when people think of their city.

 

No one in the last 50 years has thought to themselves "Chicago? Oh, you mean where the White Sox play!"

 

Ship 'em to Nashville on the next bus out.

That cuts both ways though- the Maple Leafs aren't really the Maple Leafs if they move to Houston and these team owners know this. I think a lot of major domestic sports' expansion has struggled because we're reaching diminishing returns on the untapped markets- Vegas is already being wrung dry, and no amount of threats will make London (UK) feasible. Seattle in the NBA is probably the only real strong exception, although even there I have to imagine the Kraken have eaten into a certain amount of what the limit would be, but otherwise I think cities need to start letting teams walk. At a certain point it'd stop the whole game, because the owners would police their own- they need the leverage to make it work, and when all that's left is Omaha and Regina, the leverage will be gone.

Edit: I'd add Québec as a strong potential NHL market, but it's a fairly low ceiling market and it doesn't really work as leverage because it involves selling the team to PKP, who already has a sports toy now in the Als.

As far as the level of improvement on the old logo, this is probably one of the best rebrands ever. As a whole, it's a decent set- the NBA lacks for logos with a true identity outside of Text And Basketball, so by not doing that they've already succeeded. I echo the sentiments all over that a slightly more interesting colour scheme (orange and light blue) would make this an actual A+ set.

Canadian here, can attest. I just celebrated my 37th birthday and I feel so lonely since none of my friends made it this far.

31 minutes ago, BBTV said:

 

Yeah, Canadians are basically living in igloos and yurts, killing their food with their bare hands, and praying to various gods that their diseased children heal quickly before reaching the estimated Canadian life expectancy of 30 (since nobody can afford health care, unlike in the States where everything is affordable and everyone has access to care, nobody's defaulting on loans or living on streets or in subway stations, etc.)  Add in the wars, and yeah - the standard of living all the way up there is awful.

Getting to that arena is a pain in the ass, but maybe that'd be fun to go to once or twice. I'm already familiar with the Riptide now.

Mallards

Stupid question, but do people from the area call it Panther City?  I've literally never heard that nickname outside of the team.

Hartford to Miami

Hartford

I have very little experience with box lacrosse (or lacrosse in general) but I had a lot of fun at the NLL Unboxed game in Laval.

Detroit

Bears

I know Canada is on the outside of this conversation clearly, but any conversation about the NHL needs to reference the fact that it's the biggest league here (even though both NFL and NBA are cutting in), and we are roughly a part of the market we're referring to. The NHL has a tricky position where it's the biggest (non-NFL) team in probably as many markets as any other league, but has the least "neutral" appeal.

Cannons

3 minutes ago, raz said:

If college athletes are allowed to unionize (as they may soon), here's how I think we rank them:

 

1. NFL

2. College football 

3. NBA

4. College basketball 

5. MLB

6. NASCAR 

7. NHL

8. MLS. 

Speaking to the balkanisation of sport- this shocks me because I get so little exposure to 2, 4 and 6 and 7 is easily the league I'm most exposed to.

I feel all of this debate about MLS is too centered around the idea that a league has to be the best in its sport to be a "Big (X)" league, which would thus make NASCAR, WNBA, NLL, PLL, CFL, (among others) all major league sports over MLS, as they are the highest levels of stock car racing, womens' basketball, indoor lacrosse, outdoor lacrosse and Canadian football.

Just now, Cujo said:

 

Great point. ZERO chance Messi would agree to play in MLS if he had to play for Kansas City or Cincinnati.

Eh, this applies everywhere though. He'd never play for Burnley or Wolves but that doesn't make the Prem a small-time league.