NBA or MLS? (St. Louis, Columbia, Champ: gated, closing, move)

[skipcromer]

Originally Posted by arch_genesis

The WPS is even more feasible than the MLS and it's been accomplished already. Antonucci wanted a team in St. Louis and it got done. Garber used St. Louis as a threat to other candidate cities. Yet people still think an MLS team will be awarded. Cooper said he'd build the stadium in Collinsville regardless if he was awarded an MLS franchise this go around. The plan was to move the St. Louis Lions to USL-1 if the city wasn't awarded an MLS franchise. That didn't happen and I haven't heard from Cooper since.
I'm sure he's looking for more investors when Garber raises the entry fee for a team yet again.

Unfortunately, and this really pisses me off, St. Louis is going to need an MLS team before its "hotbed" (yeah right) supports Athletica. If this city can't support Athletica I pray to God it doesn't get an MLS franchise.

/bitter -- but wholly accurate rant

I disagree completely with your logic.

That is like saying if a city doesnt support a WNBA team they shouldnt get an NBA team.

[Fishtacos]

Originally Posted by RjRobb2

MLS is more feasible because their is an ownership group actively trying to place an expansion team in St. Louis. As far as I know, you cant say the same for the NBA.

A city getting a team is all about one thing and one thing only - a qualified ownership group. It's like opening a McDonald's, if you have all the qualifications the parent company are looking for, you will be granted a franchise.

....and......the reason there is an ownership group for MLS, is because it is economically more feasible to do so in St. Louis, in this economy or any other. Here's Dave Checkett's resume below.(He's the Blues primary owner) Believe me, if he thought it was viable, he'd be talking to his friends.

Checketts was President of the Utah Jazz at age 28, making him the youngest ever in the league to hold that position.

He spent a year as General Manager of NBA International expanding league exposure around the world.

He became President of the New York Knicks in 1991. In his four years his teams finished no worse than 4th in the entire NBA, each year. The team set attendance records, television ratings records and revenue records under his watch.

He then became President of Madison Square Garden, which owned the Garden, The New York Rangers, the WNBA Liberty, and they bought Radio City Music Hall too.

He now currently owns the St. Louis Blues and the MLS Real Salt Lake soccer team.

He doesn't think the NBA is feasible in St. Louis as long as the landscape is the current landscape. Now, some may disagree, or he could change his mind, but he along with a lot of other people don't think it can happen. I think it could, but under a lot of very specific circumstances, and those would take a long time to put in place. And even at that, it's a risky proposition.

[arch_genesis]

Originally Posted by skipcromer

I disagree completely with your logic.

That is like saying if a city doesnt support a WNBA team they shouldnt get an NBA team.

Null. There's no logic involved its simply my opinion as silly it is to admit that there's no logic involved in my rant only my rationalization. I provided some disputable facts but what concluded was my opinion. If you'd like to call it irrational on my part you're more than welcome to do that but ultimately you can't argue opinion vs opinion.

For a city that claims to be the hotbed of soccer in America, if it failed to support Athletica, I personally would hope St. Louis doesn't get an MLS team. Its not by logic that MLS shouldn't get an MLS team in such an event, it is only by my opinion.

Its of my opinion that the WPS is as good a product as MLS. I would not assume the same of the WNBA in comparison to the NBA. If you're attempting to follow my rationale I would suggest you start here noting this important difference. I don't think the WNBA is in any way comparable to the NBA. I do think the WPS on more equal footing to MLS as a quality league.

The MLS isn't a top 10 Men's league. The WPS is the best women's league in the world and its loaded with the worlds finest womens players. They've had some thrilling competitive games. You'd find argument that the best games in this Country have been played in that league. If you haven't watched you should. It has the Gold Medal Women's team from the Olympics as well as the stars of the brazilian team who went silver. The German World Cup winning team is also expected to have some players come over in the near future as well.

[skipcromer]

Originally Posted by arch_genesis

Null. There's no logic involved its simply my opinion as silly it is to admit that there's no logic involved in my rant only my rationalization. I provided some disputable facts but what concluded was my opinion. If you'd like to call it irrational on my part you're more than welcome to do that but ultimately you can't argue opinion vs opinion.

For a city that claims to be the hotbed of soccer in America, if it failed to support Athletica, I personally would hope St. Louis doesn't get an MLS team. Its not by logic that MLS shouldn't get an MLS team in such an event, it is only by my opinion.

Its of my opinion that the WPS is as good a product as MLS. I would not assume the same of the WNBA in comparison to the NBA. If you're attempting to follow my rationale I would suggest you start here noting this important difference. I don't think the WNBA is in any way comparable to the NBA. I do think the WPS on more equal footing to MLS as a quality league.

The MLS isn't a top 10 Men's league. The WPS is the best women's league in the world and its loaded with the worlds finest womens players. They've had some thrilling competitive games. You'd find argument that the best games in this Country have been played in that league. If you haven't watched you should. It has the Gold Medal Women's team from the Olympics as well as the stars of the brazilian team who went silver. The German World Cup winning team is also expected to have some players come over in the near future as well.

I have. I watched a couple games on FSC. It really did not do much for me. In fairness, the MLS doesnt do much for me either.

That said, if I had the choice between watching Athletica play or any MLS team play, chances are im going with MLS. If that means it is your opinion that St. Louis doesnt deserve a MLS team than so be it.

[Fishtacos]

Originally Posted by arch_genesis

Null. There's no logic involved its simply my opinion as silly it is to admit that there's no logic involved in my rant only my rationalization. I provided some disputable facts but what concluded was my opinion. If you'd like to call it irrational on my part you're more than welcome to do that but ultimately you can't argue opinion vs opinion.

For a city that claims to be the hotbed of soccer in America, if it failed to support Athletica, I personally would hope St. Louis doesn't get an MLS team. Its not by logic that MLS shouldn't get an MLS team in such an event, it is only by my opinion.

Its of my opinion that the WPS is as good a product as MLS. I would not assume the same of the WNBA in comparison to the NBA. If you're attempting to follow my rationale I would suggest you start here noting this important difference. I don't think the WNBA is in any way comparable to the NBA. I do think the WPS on more equal footing to MLS as a quality league.

The MLS isn't a top 10 Men's league. The WPS is the best women's league in the world and its loaded with the worlds finest womens players. They've had some thrilling competitive games. You'd find argument that the best games in this Country have been played in that league. If you haven't watched you should. It has the Gold Medal Women's team from the Olympics as well as the stars of the brazilian team who went silver. The German World Cup winning team is also expected to have some players come over in the near future as well.

Now I am not following your logic. You say the WNBA is not comparable to the NBA. Then you say the WPS is the best women's pro soccer league. Well, the WNBA is the best womens pro basketball league too.

What does quality league mean to you? Do you mean level of play? You are aware that the U.S. under 16 boys team routinely defeated the U.S. Women's National Soccer team in exhibition games past and present, correct? So that means Mia Hamm and past star players and teams couldn't beat the under 16 boys, as well as current women's players. It's apples to oranges. One can appreciate womens athletics separately than men's athletics.

MLS is in it's infancy stages, and unlike women's professional soccer, it hasn't had other leagues well developed all over the world loooooong before MLS came along. The idea of MLS is a looooong term process. One can either be a part of that process, or one can show up way down the road on the bandwagon. I have several male friends who work at U.S. Soccer that have zero interest in MLS, and they have zero interest in the women's game because all they care about is best possible play and best possible league's worldwide right now today. I hold a different opinion. I see value in the development of MLS. It is not currently an elite league, nor will it be for a long time. It's gotten better in recent years, and it has a long way to go. Some people enjoy seeing and being a part of that process, and some don't want to waste their time, and be frustrated by the less quality of play, less skill, less athleticism, etc...

But your conclusions don't make sense to me. I believe men's and women's sports are entirely separate. Jeff Cooper said at one time that he would guarantee a USL team for men if MLS passed on St. Louis. Seattle for example has a very long and rich USL and other league history in men's soccer. He would start there. He also is a smart enough guy, that he knows it does not hurt his perceived commitment to an MLS team, if he also adds women's soccer to the mix. It is sort of like a cherry on a sundae, instead of the main course. It isn't a huge thing, but don't underestimate it either, and it isn't necessary or deeply related to getting an MLS team. Every little bit helps. I believe you are way overplaying the connection's value and perhaps some or others may be under playing it. However, imo you are mostly overplaying it.

Jeff hopes to get people out to a women's game and hopes the quality of women's play will get people to come back. He's getting that 5000 a game. He'll need 3-4 times that for the men on a consistent basis. And I know he'd get that too in St. Louis as long as the MLS team would be competitive. Corporate sponsors would require less of an investment, and he already has some lined up. Ticket pricing and number of games is far less than NHL or NBA. There's a rich soccer history, and lots of interest. And, the non-soccer, curiosity seekers will take in games early too.

One doesn't need to rip MLS generally speaking to appreciate the new women's soccer league. They can be enjoyed separately by different people and some crossover people.

[arch_genesis]

The problem with the WNBA analogy is unlike the MLS the NBA is the top men's basketball league in the world. There's a huge difference watching an NBA game and watching a WNBA game.
The best women's player Candace Parker isn't even in the same discussion as Kobe Bryant or Lebron James. Marta on the other hand was named the best soccer player in the world Male or Female by the NYTimes. I think people will give you NBA> WNBA.
I think you'll find a fight w/ saying "MLS > WPS". Its the top women's league vs a league that isn't considered top 20. The gap can't be that huge. The MLS isn't EPL.

Also St. Louis isn't claiming to be the "hotbed" of basketball. A lot of my expectations stem from St. Louis claiming to be the country's hotbed of Soccer, and I think that's fair. This is suppose to be soccer capital USA.

Tacos, I wouldn't expect women competing against men to win, I wasn't saying the WPS is better than the MLS in direct competition, no let's not turn this into boys are better than girls. I also wasn't trying to rip the MLS. I never said the MLS sucks or anything dismissive on the contrary I get the feeling that people here are more dismissive of the WPS, because "the U.S. under 16 boys team routinely defeated the U.S. Women's National Soccer team".

The WPS has a richer talent pool and the same skill set, maybe the athleticism is dialed down but its not as obvious as dunking in the NBA and no dunking in the WNBA. Or Lebron shooting jumpshots from halfcourt. I don't think Athleticism makes soccer leagues the way it does basketball leagues. Wambach can sky to hit a header just the same as Marcus Tracy.

The MLS just can't say its head and shoulders above the WPS as a league but people seem so quick to jump to that conclusion.

Because of this one can expect a 15k in attendance in St. Louis if it got an MLS team while Athletica barely averages 4k. I just think its sad when you take into account 1. the soccer history in St. Louis ("hotbed"), 2. the price of tickets of the WPS, and 3. the product on the field (best women's league in the world and comparable to the MLS. There's no reason to dismiss the league in favor of the MLS just because "the U.S. under 16 boys team routinely defeated the U.S. Women's National Soccer team". As you said, apples in oranges. Your trying to compare men vs women in direct competition, I'm comparing the leagues themselves. You've missed the argument.

Maybe some people need testosterone and Beckham for their soccer fix in the USA. Marta Solo Wambach Daniela Cristiane Carli Lloyd Natasha Kai will do just find for me. I'd rather watch WWC and Olympic Gold and Silver medalists play. [Shrugs]

[skipcromer]

Originally Posted by arch_genesis

The problem with the WNBA analogy is unlike the MLS the NBA is the top men's basketball league in the world. There's a huge difference watching an NBA game and watching a WNBA game.
The best women's player Candace Parker isn't even in the same discussion as Kobe Bryant or Lebron James. Marta on the other hand was named the best soccer player in the world Male or Female by the NYTimes. I think people will give you NBA> WNBA.
I think you'll find a fight w/ saying "MLS > WPS". Its the top women's league vs a league that isn't considered top 20. The gap can't be that huge. The MLS isn't EPL.

Also St. Louis isn't claiming to be the "hotbed" of basketball. A lot of my expectations stem from St. Louis claiming to be the country's hotbed of Soccer, and I think that's fair. This is suppose to be soccer capital USA.

Tacos, I wouldn't expect women competing against men to win, I wasn't saying the WPS is better than the MLS in direct competition, no let's not turn this into boys are better than girls. I also wasn't trying to rip the MLS. I never said the MLS sucks or anything dismissive on the contrary I get the feeling that people here are more dismissive of the WPS, because "the U.S. under 16 boys team routinely defeated the U.S. Women's National Soccer team".

The WPS has a richer talent pool and the same skill set, maybe the athleticism is dialed down but its not as obvious as dunking in the NBA and no dunking in the WNBA. Or Lebron shooting jumpshots from halfcourt. I don't think Athleticism makes soccer leagues the way it does basketball leagues. Wambach can sky to hit a header just the same as Marcus Tracy.

The MLS just can't say its head and shoulders above the WPS as a league but people seem so quick to jump to that conclusion.

Because of this one can expect a 15k in attendance in St. Louis if it got an MLS team while Athletica barely averages 4k. I just think its sad when you take into account 1. the soccer history in St. Louis ("hotbed"), 2. the price of tickets of the WPS, and 3. the product on the field (best women's league in the world and comparable to the MLS. There's no reason to dismiss the league in favor of the MLS just because "the U.S. under 16 boys team routinely defeated the U.S. Women's National Soccer team". As you said, apples in oranges. Your trying to compare men vs women in direct competition, I'm comparing the leagues themselves. You've missed the argument.

Maybe some people need testosterone and Beckham for their soccer fix in the USA. Marta Solo Wambach Daniela Cristiane Carli Lloyd Natasha Kai will do just find for me. I'd rather watch WWC and Olympic Gold and Silver medalists play. [Shrugs]

You use Marta as an example. No doubt she is an amazing player.

That said, I can think of probably 30 MLS players I would prefer to watch over her.

Sorry.

[RjRobb2]

Originally Posted by arch_genesis

The WPS is even more feasible than the MLS and it's been accomplished already. Antonucci wanted a team in St. Louis and it got done. Garber used St. Louis as a threat to other candidate cities. Yet people still think an MLS team will be awarded. Cooper said he'd build the stadium in Collinsville regardless if he was awarded an MLS franchise this go around. The plan was to move the St. Louis Lions to USL-1 if the city wasn't awarded an MLS franchise. That didn't happen and I haven't heard from Cooper since.
I'm sure he's looking for more investors when Garber raises the entry fee for a team yet again.

Unfortunately, and this really pisses me off, St. Louis is going to need an MLS team before its "hotbed" (yeah right) supports Athletica. If this city can't support Athletica I pray to God it doesn't get an MLS franchise.

/bitter -- but wholly accurate rant

I am not arguing for or against the WPS. It is irrelevant to me. I am glad the league exist but other than that it doesnt matter to me at all. My comments are for the title of the thread which is NBA vs. MLS.

Garber didnt use St. Louis as a threat for other candidate cities. St. Louis merely wasnt one of the best two expansion bids.

Garber has said a 100 times that he wants a team in St. Louis. But, that isnt going to happen as long as other ownership groups put together a better bid.

I strongly believe St. Louis will be in the next round of expansion along with Montreal.

[Fishtacos]

Originally Posted by arch_genesis

The problem with the WNBA analogy is unlike the MLS the NBA is the top men's basketball league in the world. There's a huge difference watching an NBA game and watching a WNBA game.
The best women's player Candace Parker isn't even in the same discussion as Kobe Bryant or Lebron James. Marta on the other hand was named the best soccer player in the world Male or Female by the NYTimes. I think people will give you NBA> WNBA.
I think you'll find a fight w/ saying "MLS > WPS". Its the top women's league vs a league that isn't considered top 20. The gap can't be that huge. The MLS isn't EPL.

Also St. Louis isn't claiming to be the "hotbed" of basketball. A lot of my expectations stem from St. Louis claiming to be the country's hotbed of Soccer, and I think that's fair. This is suppose to be soccer capital USA.

Tacos, I wouldn't expect women competing against men to win, I wasn't saying the WPS is better than the MLS in direct competition, no let's not turn this into boys are better than girls. I also wasn't trying to rip the MLS. I never said the MLS sucks or anything dismissive on the contrary I get the feeling that people here are more dismissive of the WPS, because "the U.S. under 16 boys team routinely defeated the U.S. Women's National Soccer team".

The WPS has a richer talent pool and the same skill set, maybe the athleticism is dialed down but its not as obvious as dunking in the NBA and no dunking in the WNBA. Or Lebron shooting jumpshots from halfcourt. I don't think Athleticism makes soccer leagues the way it does basketball leagues. Wambach can sky to hit a header just the same as Marcus Tracy.

The MLS just can't say its head and shoulders above the WPS as a league but people seem so quick to jump to that conclusion.

Because of this one can expect a 15k in attendance in St. Louis if it got an MLS team while Athletica barely averages 4k. I just think its sad when you take into account 1. the soccer history in St. Louis ("hotbed"), 2. the price of tickets of the WPS, and 3. the product on the field (best women's league in the world and comparable to the MLS. There's no reason to dismiss the league in favor of the MLS just because "the U.S. under 16 boys team routinely defeated the U.S. Women's National Soccer team". As you said, apples in oranges. Your trying to compare men vs women in direct competition, I'm comparing the leagues themselves. You've missed the argument.

Maybe some people need testosterone and Beckham for their soccer fix in the USA. Marta Solo Wambach Daniela Cristiane Carli Lloyd Natasha Kai will do just find for me. I'd rather watch WWC and Olympic Gold and Silver medalists play. [Shrugs]

I have nothing against Marta, but if she played regularly against the world's elite 16 year old boys, she would not be the player of the year, nor in the elite of that group.

You are trying to compare the level of play in WPS vs MLS. This might be a first for me here, as a faint moment, literally due to disbelief of someone's position. W-O-W. What are you missing about about me telling you the World's elite women cannot consistently beat those 16 year old boys, let alone a far superior MLS product than those 16 year old boys. An MLS team could NAME IT'S OWN SCORE vs the women. No offense to the women, it's apples to oranges, a very different form of entertainment.

St. Louis "is" a hotbed of soccer nationally. It is not "the" hotbed of soccer nationally. There's a difference. St. Louis can claim quite easily its large and long history of soccer presence and influence. It can also claim strong youth club play currently.

I'm not dismissive of the WPS. However I am objective and rational, and with that in mind, as much as I love soccer and women, (note to self write a song about soccer and women) I would never enter the territory you have repeatedly entered, which is to somehow try to close a male v female level of play gap in professional soccer. I could safely argue if anything in this thread that you are pretty dismissive of MLS, and you would be very uninformed to be so dismissive.

I am saying right here right now for the whole world to see, with 100% objectivity, that MLS is head and shoulders, light years, through the roof, not even in the same breath, on different planets, in different solar systems than WPS. It doesn't mean I don't like soccer, it doesn't mean I don't like women, it doesn't mean I don't like women playing soccer, it doesn't mean I don't think women can or should play soccer. It doesn't mean I don't think women should get paid to play professional soccer.

No, I did not miss what I read. If you want to say that the WPS league has good entertainment value, that's fine. If you want to say it has more value to you than MLS or WNBA, that's fine, I may or may not agree with that. But what you keep doing is compare level of play from a talent perspective. And that's where you steer off course.

Let's try a different example. Some people think women's basketball is more entertaining than men. It's apples to oranges. Women are slower, less athletic, use a smaller, lighter basketball than men. Fundamentally, many would say women are more sound, and I'd completely disagree with that although I understand where those people are coming from. They mistakenly think the womens game is more fundamentally sound, because it's more of a team first game more often, and it's less physical, although I'm not saying it isn't physical for women. Personally I believe some people mistake the team first attitude as refreshing, as well as some other aspects of the different games. But that does not mean level of play individually or league vs league is in the same stratosphere as men. They aren't in either sport.

So, if you like the way WPS plays, great, if you like the value, and so on...great...and if you like it better than MLS....great....just make sure you say that the league is the womens top league, and that MLS is not the top World league for men, nor close to it. However, the level of play in that men's league is light years better than those women in terms of skill, speed, athleticsm, strength and so on. I respect the ability of the women, and I am not the women's sports hater that you seem not to like.

If you do a search, I posted recently on a thread giving a "bump" for women's soccer and the local women's team, for support. If you want a hater, you have the wrong person.

[Fishtacos]

Originally Posted by RjRobb2

I am not arguing for or against the WPS. It is irrelevant to me. I am glad the league exist but other than that it doesnt matter to me at all. My comments are for the title of the thread which is NBA vs. MLS.

Garber didnt use St. Louis as a threat for other candidate cities. St. Louis merely wasnt one of the best two expansion bids.

Garber has said a 100 times that he wants a team in St. Louis. But, that isnt going to happen as long as other ownership groups put together a better bid.

I strongly believe St. Louis will be in the next round of expansion along with Montreal.

The truth here is in the middle. St. Louis was less of a priority for Garber, that is true. Garber has bias, in the sense in that he does not award teams based on a level playing field of who has their ship in order first and most.

However, St. Louis also was not meeting all of the requirements either.

The league did not like the location of the proposed Collinsville location, but was willing to work with it. There were other financial questions too.

However, it would be inaccurate to say St. Louis was on a level playing field. That wasn't or isn't the case. St. Louis is in the mix moving forward, in part because they were less of a priority for the league until now, and in part because of their position as a group.