Lindenwood? In st.Charles? No
If they played in 2022 (they won’t) they’d play at soccer park
- 9,558
If they played in 2022 (they won’t) they’d play at soccer park
Or SLU, which is a little bigger and obviously closer.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Feb 28, 2021Lindenwood? In st.Charles? Noibleedlou wrote: ↑Feb 27, 2021That is big news. Could Lindenwood's stadium be of use, if they started in 22? It's a nice looking stadium that holds around 7,500 currently with room to expand. Just a thought.
If they played in 2022 (they won’t) they’d play at soccer park
If SLU had a stadium of Lindenwood's caliber, they'd definitely play there. It's a legit stadium originally built as a training facility for the Cardinals, the Big Red, and could be expanded with ease. It's also held a few National Championships in soccer already at the NAIA level. Unfortunately, it's not likely to happen, but kind of fun to think about.
I still think it would be the dome. First season you could fill plenty of extra seats over the soccer stadiums capacity. Actually might be a decent atmosphere (loud) if you could get 40k plus in there.
That all said as others mentioned they won’t move it up so it doesn’t matter.
That all said as others mentioned they won’t move it up so it doesn’t matter.
Yeah, makes total sense. Btw, didn't the MLS used to require natural grass, which is why we didn't have a team already. The Dome, Soccer Park and Harlen C. Hunter Stadium all have artificial turf, which I didn't think of at first, but it appears teams do play on artificial turf currently in the MLS. I didn't know this and wonder if these current artificial fields will remain artificial or eventually will switch to natural grass, even the brand new stadiums, like Cincy. What player, especially Euro, S. American, etc. player, wants to play for a team with artificial turf? Might hurt a team in free agency.jshank83 wrote: ↑Mar 01, 2021I still think it would be the dome. First season you could fill plenty of extra seats over the soccer stadiums capacity. Actually might be a decent atmosphere (loud) if you could get 40k plus in there.
That all said as others mentioned they won’t move it up so it doesn’t matter.
Leads me to another question...will SLU continue to play in their current stadium, or will they play at the new MLS stadium? I always felt SLU soccer had 'fallen from grace' because the new powers in NCAA soccer (most) have fantastic stadiums, while SLU's stadium looks like a practice field. SLU has 10 national championships in Div 1 soccer. 10!!!! Playing at the new MLS stadium would keep more hometown talent, home, and would be a huge asset in recruiting. I remember driving into Omaha once and seeing Creighton's soccer stadium downtown. I'm not sure if Omaha has a history or strong soccer tradition such as St. Louis (highly doubtful), but what I do know is their soccer stadium isn't hurting their program, which started in 1979. No national championships, but they're always competitive. Just a thought.
^ I assume financial backing played a bigger role in STL’s efforts to land a team than turf did. Not to say that their concerns about playing surface were unwarranted.
I personally think SLU’s existing stadium conditions could be improved if they bothered to invest in any of the properties around them...but playing at the new MLS stadium is certainly a good idea.
I personally think SLU’s existing stadium conditions could be improved if they bothered to invest in any of the properties around them...but playing at the new MLS stadium is certainly a good idea.
Playing the first year somewhere with way more seats would be great for accessibility.
Sometimes we're too good of a sports city.
I'm assuming, like the BattleHawks, MLS tickets will be too pricey for the non-die hards in year one. (I know, you could've gotten reasonably priced season tickets). But what few single-game tickets are available will probably be spendy. Will they purposely set some seats aside for single-game purchase, or do they all go as season tickets to that massive list of folks who put down deposits?
I'm hoping there are other events, or maybe a lower-level or women's team can play there to fill up the calendar with more dates and increase accessibility.
Sometimes we're too good of a sports city.
I'm assuming, like the BattleHawks, MLS tickets will be too pricey for the non-die hards in year one. (I know, you could've gotten reasonably priced season tickets). But what few single-game tickets are available will probably be spendy. Will they purposely set some seats aside for single-game purchase, or do they all go as season tickets to that massive list of folks who put down deposits?
I'm hoping there are other events, or maybe a lower-level or women's team can play there to fill up the calendar with more dates and increase accessibility.
Hard to swallow St. Louis not having a financial backer when in comes to soccer, but I suppose that's likely what it was, along with timing. Bad timing, that is, with the NFL returning to STL in 95 (as the city had NFL fever) and our newly established NFL ownership likely wasn't willing to divert resources/attention on a new venture at the time. The Cardinals were also under new ownership in 95, who also began transitioning Busch II into a baseball only facility, after the Rams last game at Busch II, that same year.sc4mayor wrote: ↑Mar 01, 2021^ I assume financial backing played a bigger role in STL’s efforts to land a team than turf did. Not to say that their concerns about playing surface were unwarranted.
I personally think SLU’s existing stadium conditions could be improved if they bothered to invest in any of the properties around them...but playing at the new MLS stadium is certainly a good idea.
I swear I remember requirements, either natural grass and/or open-aired stadiums for markets to be awarded a MLS franchise, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. As for SLU, man they disappoint sometimes. First forward pass in football history, yet no team today. Builds a new basketball arena, yet includes no ability to add ice...I mean SLU hockey would work as soon as yesterday, and of course a soccer team with ten division 1 titles that plays in such a lackluster stadium. I'd call it a field more than a stadium. Typical underselling, you find all too often in St. Louis.
SLU doesn't have the game attendance to need to play in a bigger place. Now if they played at the new stadium would it be better? Probably, but I doubt enough to offset cost. Maybe for a homecoming game or something where they expect more but I would think that is about it.
I don't think they've made the tournament since 2014. 48 prior trips, means they haven't been good recently, and bad teams don't fill seats.jshank83 wrote: ↑Mar 01, 2021SLU doesn't have the game attendance to need to play in a bigger place. Now if they played at the new stadium would it be better? Probably, but I doubt enough to offset cost. Maybe for a homecoming game or something where they expect more but I would think that is about it.
Still, I think you are correct and maybe they could schedule a few games a year at the new stadium, or perhaps double up games like we did in high school, playing football at Busch Stadium. In other words, perhaps SLU plays an opponent followed by UMSL playing an opponent afterwards, a few times a year to help boost attendance. I already imagine a catholic high school soccer night of SLUH vs. De Smet and CBC vs. Vianney. Something like that for the local colleges, especially for SLU, could help their program.
Perhaps they transition to the new stadium over time...would be cool to see them play there, especially if ranked again nationally. If not, so be it. Just kind of sucks to see the University with the most championship wins in college soccer not living up to their legacy, both on the pitch, to include the pitch itself.
Double up idea isn’t bad. I’d do it with SIUe (either play each other or SIUe hosts the other game). They are moving back to the Missouri valley from the MAC next year so you could have something like SIUe vs Mo State and SLU vs whoever.ibleedlou wrote: ↑Mar 02, 2021I don't think they've made the tournament since 2014. 48 prior trips, means they haven't been good recently, and bad teams don't fill seats.jshank83 wrote: ↑Mar 01, 2021SLU doesn't have the game attendance to need to play in a bigger place. Now if they played at the new stadium would it be better? Probably, but I doubt enough to offset cost. Maybe for a homecoming game or something where they expect more but I would think that is about it.
Still, I think you are correct and maybe they could schedule a few games a year at the new stadium, or perhaps double up games like we did in high school, playing football at Busch Stadium. In other words, perhaps SLU plays an opponent followed by UMSL playing an opponent afterwards, a few times a year to help boost attendance. I already imagine a catholic high school soccer night of SLUH vs. De Smet and CBC vs. Vianney. Something like that for the local colleges, especially for SLU, could help their program.
Perhaps they transition to the new stadium over time...would be cool to see them play there, especially if ranked again nationally. If not, so be it. Just kind of sucks to see the University with the most championship wins in college soccer not living up to their legacy, both on the pitch, to include the pitch itself.
The hadn’t realized it had been that long since SLU made the NCAA tourney. SIUe made the sweet 16 in 2016 and I thought SLU had made it in that year also for some reason.
My guess is that the rest of the league is no where near ready for an expansion draft this year alignment issues etc...- they will wait till 23
Here's an interesting article from a few years ago about playing soccer in non- soccer venues
https://ussoccerplayers.com/2014/04/soc ... -size.html
https://ussoccerplayers.com/2014/04/soc ... -size.html
Close... Anheuser-Busch put the team up for sale in late October 1995, and the DeWitt group closed the sale in March 1996.ibleedlou wrote: ↑Mar 01, 2021The Cardinals were also under new ownership in 95, who also began transitioning Busch II into a baseball only facility, after the Rams last game at Busch II, that same year.
1996 was the Cardinals first season under new ownership (it was also the first season the team played on a grass field since 1969 and the first time they reached the postseason since 1987).
Busch II's transition into a baseball-only facility occurred between the 1995 and 1996 baseball seasons - it was still configured as a dual-purpose stadium in fall 1995, when the Rams played their first 4 home games there, on Astroturf. The Dome wasn't ready for them until mid-November that year.
I don't think the readiness of the new stadium would be the sticking point for starting play in 2022. Major League Soccer has a strong preference for grass, but the league is also known for bending or just making up rules on the fly to further their goals. There are still a handful of teams playing on turf including Atlanta which shares an NFL stadium and only started playing in 2017.
I think if the league wanted St Louis to play in 2022 either the dome or Busch Stadium could be league-approved to host games before the new stadium is finished (of course the owners of those venues would also need to agree). NYCFC had a similar situation when they started play in 2015, the plan was to play at Yankee Stadium until a purpose-built stadium was finished (but they didn't have a venue under construction and the site they wanted fell through so they're still sharing a baseball field years later).
I think if the league wanted St Louis to play in 2022 either the dome or Busch Stadium could be league-approved to host games before the new stadium is finished (of course the owners of those venues would also need to agree). NYCFC had a similar situation when they started play in 2015, the plan was to play at Yankee Stadium until a purpose-built stadium was finished (but they didn't have a venue under construction and the site they wanted fell through so they're still sharing a baseball field years later).
Ah, sure, up for sale in 95, sold in 96. The MLS was to kick off in 95, but started in 96. Point being, with the Cards changing ownership, there wasn't anyone sitting atop our MLB team, who also owned a viable outdoor stadium, that was going to drop $5 Million on a new MLS franchise at the time. The Rams had just came to town, and it's likely ownership was focused on the new market, the new dome, etc., and also unlikely to invest in a new startup league even if the dome would have been okay for the MLS (which I don't believe it would have been).DTGstl314 wrote: ↑Mar 03, 2021Close... Anheuser-Busch put the team up for sale in late October 1995, and the DeWitt group closed the sale in March 1996.ibleedlou wrote: ↑Mar 01, 2021The Cardinals were also under new ownership in 95, who also began transitioning Busch II into a baseball only facility, after the Rams last game at Busch II, that same year.
1996 was the Cardinals first season under new ownership (it was also the first season the team played on a grass field since 1969 and the first time they reached the postseason since 1987).
Busch II's transition into a baseball-only facility occurred between the 1995 and 1996 baseball seasons - it was still configured as a dual-purpose stadium in fall 1995, when the Rams played their first 4 home games there, on Astroturf. The Dome wasn't ready for them until mid-November that year.
Bad timing seems to have played a part, along with building a dome vs. open air NFL stadium, and later a lack of investors with the right vision until the current ownership.
Look at the old blue paint on the walls in Busch II, before repainting them green! Almost went the way of Anaheim's stadium, opening it up.
Exhibition game, er sorry, a friendly. They don't require a regulation-sized field.
As I recall, the only way to squeeze a regulation field in the Dome would have been to retract the bleachers, which would leave something like a 20' wall along the sidelines...
I’m not sure they would need a regulation field. They played a World Cup qualifier at Busch and it isn’t regulation. They can make an exception if they needed to for part of a season. It’s close enough.
I'm not sure about the MLS, but in FIFA, fields are allowed to have varying dimensions; sort of like outfields in baseball.
From a spit balling coming off the Covid pandemic everyone wanting to get out and about wouldn't the owners want to strife for a 2022 opening if given a chance and build some fanbase? It also makes sense to me from a simple business perspective to pursue a 2022 opening on the basis of ownership already incurring costs so sooner the better on generating revenues. Especially with the all in we are building a stadium commitment.
I think everyone agrees that one way or another that their is options to play somewhere locally until the stadium is ready.
I think everyone agrees that one way or another that their is options to play somewhere locally until the stadium is ready.