Expansion Rumors Megathread
- Thread starter MagnusPax
- Start date
thats the thing, the current ownership i think banned like half supporters groups so is there even that many left? apparently they got a new investor last year so this is more his doing wanting to start from scratch really.
Shawn Ryu
Registered
Fuck that, Chicago Fire should not be allowed to change the name. Change the badge.
I mean, it’s not like there’s a Chicago County they could be confused for. I mean, the whole “city” thing, I would surmise stems from multiple teams in the same area. Then, one decides to stake a claim to the city proper, not just the whole area.
Their name is fine. It’s actually a good name. If anything, drop the Chicago. Just be Fire.
Right. It's not like it's one of those original MLS names that really needed changing. They weren't the Wizards or the Burn or the Metrostars. Heck, most of the names original to MLS are pretty good - Sounders, Timbers, Galaxy, Rapids, Union, Earthquakes and, yes, Fire.
Shawn Ryu
Registered
Eh, Galaxy is kinda cheesy but they can't change it now.
Anyone else rooting for Sacramento bid just so MLS can end strings of shitty ass expansion franchise names?
I think the Galaxy was a bad play on/trying to harken back to the Cosmos.
And being the Galaxians.
are they not coming in as Sacramento FC?
Shawn Ryu
Registered
I mean, why?
When they submitted their expansion bid, they had an ownership dispute and dropped the Republic name. They have since reconciled that conflict so they will be Republic.
Sacramento Republic?
Isn't that just as bad as "United" or "Inter" or "FC"?
ferrarinycfc
Registered
Google Chicago Fire and just about everything that comes up, is connected to the TV show.
Could be a reason they are looking to change the name.
Could be a reason they are looking to change the name.
MLS release mentions Sacramento and St. Louis by name as presenting to the board later this summer. High probability they'll get in, with #30 announced next year. Current Phoenix as the front runner for that spot, with Charlotte and Indy looking motivated to compete.
For structure with 30, I think they should copy the NBA. Have three divisions per conference for scheduling purposes and the division winners automatically qualify, but playoff seeding is division agnostic, i.e. division winners plus five wildcards qualify, but seeding is based on points only, and higher seed always hosts. Play everyone once (29 games), your division a second time (4 games) and then one other conference opponent (with some teams having protected rivals for this final game).
EASTERN CONFERENCE
NORTHEAST | Montreal, New England, New York City, NY Red Bulls, Philadelphia
MIDWEST | Minnesota, Chicago, Toronto, Columbus, Cincinnati
SOUTHEAST | Nashville, Atlanta, DC United, Orlando, Miami
WESTERN CONFERENCE
CENTRAL | Sporting KC, St. Louis, Dallas, Austin, Houston
NORTHWEST | Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, Real Salt Lake, Colorado
SOUTHWEST | Sacramento, San Jose, Los Angeles, LA Galaxy, Las Vegas*
PROTECTED RIVALS
Montreal | Toronto
NY Red Bulls | DC United
Chicago | St. Louis
Sporting KC | Colorado
I split rivals not based on how significant the rivalry is, but how likely the teams are to develop rivalries against the other four teams in the division, because the rivalry itself would be protected and always played twice a year. (For example, you could move DC United to the Northeast, Montreal to the Midwest, and Cincinnati to the Southeast, but I thought Montreal would rather play New England and the New York teams twice than Minnesota, Chicago, and the Ohios, and Cincinnati would rather play the other Midwest teams twice than the South and Floridas. DC United could go either way.)
*Changed from Phoenix
Last edited:
That's just too sensible for MLS.
Similar threads
