PDA

View Full Version : Why The Chicago Riot Will Fail: Special Commentary


Soccer-Man
12-04-2010, 09:52 AM
So tomorrow (12/5/10) is the day that so many has been waiting for. Itís the beginning of the end in a strange kind of way. Tomorrow is the day that the Great President Peter Wilt will debut his Chicago Riot at the Odeum Expo Center. Yet I would be lying to myself and the MISL Universe if I said, I believe this franchise will make it. We have been down this road before only to end up with another Chicago team folding and the MISL taking a black eye for it. There was the Power, Vultures, Sting, and who could forget the Storm. A few months back, I wrote an OP-ED entitled DOES THE CITY OF CHICAGO DESERVE AN MISL EXPANSION TEAM. It listed my objections to going down this road again in a city that doesnít really support professional sports (unless they win of course). Nevertheless, the Riot is suppose to represent a new day. Notwithstanding, this is why they will fail.

1) They play in the City of Chicago. For reasons that I canít explain, Chicago doesnít have passion for sports teams unless they win and are from one of the big leagues.

2) Late start. Two weeks before the season starts, the MISL expands to Chicago. I get that fact that they wanted a fifth team, but this is ridiculous. They tried the same thing with the Twisters and we all know how that turned out. Now donít get me wrong, even with ample time, I still donít think the Riot franchise would work, but if youíre going to do, at least do it the right way.

3) Odeum Expo Center is not a real arena. The many indoor soccer Chicago teams has played musical chairs with the arenas theyíve played in and none has work. Who could forget the UIC Pavilion? Sears/Kmart Center? All State Arena? The Expo seats 3,500 and the Riot SHOULD have no trouble selling it out. However, this is Chicago and we all know that that wonít happen.

As much as I would like to see a viable MISL team in Chicago, I canít see the Riot being successful. Maybe one of these days, the MISL will see that Chicago is just not worth the headache.

CorA
12-05-2010, 01:30 PM
Soccer-Man:
1) Does not know anything about Chicago sports becuase the teams do get supported even if they don't win. Chicago teams might not sell out every game if they don't win but Chicago is very passionate about many teams (Bears, Cubs, Blackhaawks, Sox, Bulls, and even sometimes the Fire). So don't say Chicago isn't a sports city or area because you don't know what you are talking about. Chicago is one of the most passionate for their sports teams.
2) The Expo Center is not a real arena. I agree with you on that.
3) The Riot won't make it, we all know.
4) I come from Chicago and it is as great a sports city as any other.

wasteland
12-05-2010, 04:13 PM
Soccer-Man:
1) Does not know anything about Chicago sports becuase the teams do get supported even if they don't win. Chicago teams might not sell out every game if they don't win but Chicago is very passionate about many teams (Bears, Cubs, Blackhaawks, Sox, Bulls, and even sometimes the Fire). So don't say Chicago isn't a sports city or area because you don't know what you are talking about. Chicago is one of the most passionate for their sports teams.

Couldn't of said it better myself. And for minor league support look at The Wolves of the AHL and the Rush of the AFL (though both play in Rosemont). Most minor league teams are located in the burbs anyways, and yes the support varies greatly

Soccer-Man
12-07-2010, 05:50 PM
Soccer-Man:
1) Does not know anything about Chicago sports becuase the teams do get supported even if they don't win. Chicago teams might not sell out every game if they don't win but Chicago is very passionate about many teams (Bears, Cubs, Blackhaawks, Sox, Bulls, and even sometimes the Fire). So don't say Chicago isn't a sports city or area because you don't know what you are talking about. Chicago is one of the most passionate for their sports teams.
2) The Expo Center is not a real arena. I agree with you on that.
3) The Riot won't make it, we all know.
4) I come from Chicago and it is as great a sports city as any other.


I do know Chicago and Chicago area teams.

I know that the White Sox was going to move to Tampa Bay in the early '90s.

I know that the Black Hawks only draw fans when they win; like last season.

I know that the Fire can't sell out 20,000 seat Toyato Park.

I know that the Olympics said NO.

I know that any indoor soccer team is doomed there.

I know that the Chicago Rush folded a few years back.

I know that the NEW Sears Center has been an absolute failure.


I could go on and on but you get the point. By the way, there were only 1,094 fans at the Riot game. That's embarrassing. My point is valid.


SHAME

wasteland
12-08-2010, 09:56 PM
The white sox used the threat of the move to gain funding for a new stadium, and that was late 80's, not the 90's.

Except for a 4 or 5 year span ending about 3 years ago, The BH have been near or at the top for attendance. When they moved to the United Center attendance was through the roof thansk to the additonal seating.

Chicago and Illinois is broke and couldn't afford the Olympics.The United States Olympic Committee did select Chicago over Houston, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and San Francisco, as its candidate city. The summer games have only been hosted 4 times in the US, so this is really a silly arguement for this subject.

The Rush never folded, the league did. When the league was reborn, the Rush was waiting.

The Fire averaged almost 15k fans a game, not the top, but no where near the bottom. 75% capacity in this economy is nothing to be ashamed of.

The Sears Center is located about an hour drive from downtown Chicago, in other words it ain't Chicago.

Didn't know as much as you thought.

Soccer is a niche sport for kids in the eyes of many. Until it comes off as exciting, it will remain so. When going up against the Bears, Bulls, Hawks, Wolves etc, an indoor team with no history has little chance.

You made no point, so what do you think is valid?

Sam Hill
12-09-2010, 02:53 PM
So tomorrow (12/5/10) is the day that so many has been waiting for.

Rarely is the question asked, "Is our children learning?"

Pounder
12-10-2010, 12:16 AM
Memo to S-M:

Beggars can't be choosers. The league is a beggar, or else they wouldn't have had to accept Chicago.

Peter Wilt has a LOT of appreciation... among MLS fans. I don't think that translates to indoor attendance, and I think the reasons why are clear.

Soccer-Man
12-25-2010, 07:01 PM
The white sox used the threat of the move to gain funding for a new stadium, and that was late 80's, not the 90's.

Except for a 4 or 5 year span ending about 3 years ago, The BH have been near or at the top for attendance. When they moved to the United Center attendance was through the roof thansk to the additonal seating.

Chicago and Illinois is broke and couldn't afford the Olympics.The United States Olympic Committee did select Chicago over Houston, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and San Francisco, as its candidate city. The summer games have only been hosted 4 times in the US, so this is really a silly arguement for this subject.

The Rush never folded, the league did. When the league was reborn, the Rush was waiting.

The Fire averaged almost 15k fans a game, not the top, but no where near the bottom. 75% capacity in this economy is nothing to be ashamed of.

The Sears Center is located about an hour drive from downtown Chicago, in other words it ain't Chicago.

Didn't know as much as you thought.

Soccer is a niche sport for kids in the eyes of many. Until it comes off as exciting, it will remain so. When going up against the Bears, Bulls, Hawks, Wolves etc, an indoor team with no history has little chance.

You made no point, so what do you think is valid?

Your defense of Chicago as a sports town, while admirable is still in uncharted waters.

Outside of the big four they won't support sports. Inside of the big four, the Bulls, and Hawks get support only when they win. Look, Chicago is a big city that acts like a small town. More is expected of a city the size of Chicago. I'm sorry if that offends you, but it's true.

I mean for crying out loud, Chicago is the 3 most populated city in America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population#Incorpo rated_places_over_100.2C000_population

When a city this size can't (or won't) support the UIC Pavillion, Sears Center, All State Arena, White Sox etc something is wrong.

As my good Friend Lawrence O'Donnell once said, "You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts."


SHAME

Sam Hill
12-27-2010, 04:59 PM
Inside of the big four, the Bulls, and Hawks get support only when they win.

Which is why, from 1998-2002, post-Jordan et al, the Bulls were only able to average 21,162 people per game while going 66-230 on the court.

Whose own facts again?

The Blackhawks' problems were more systemic than anything else. When Wirtz died and McDonough came in and started marketing the team like it should have been and bringing it into the late 20th century in terms of procedures, Chicago responded.

But it's easier to just make a dumb blanket statement when you don't know anything about the situation.

wasteland
12-28-2010, 11:47 AM
Which is why, from 1998-2002, post-Jordan et al, the Bulls were only able to average 21,162 people per game while going 66-230 on the court.

Whose own facts again?

The Blackhawks' problems were more systemic than anything else. When Wirtz died and McDonough came in and started marketing the team like it should have been and bringing it into the late 20th century in terms of procedures, Chicago responded.

But it's easier to just make a dumb blanket statement when you don't know anything about the situation.

beat me to it.

Soccer-Man
01-01-2011, 12:06 PM
Which is why, from 1998-2002, post-Jordan et al, the Bulls were only able to average 21,162 people per game while going 66-230 on the court. Whose own facts again?

The Blackhawks' problems were more systemic than anything else. When Wirtz died and McDonough came in and started marketing the team like it should have been and bringing it into the late 20th century in terms of procedures, Chicago responded.

But it's easier to just make a dumb blanket statement when you don't know anything about the situation.

C'mon Sam, you know that when a team wins a title for two, there is a honeymoon period where fans will show up just because. You know that.

Look, I live in Baltimore and I know all about poor ownership. Remember Robert Irsay got destroyed the Colts here, got drunk and moved them to Indianapolis. The Orioles are owned by the worse owner in Baseball, Peter G. Angelos. The fans stopped showing up and I don't blame them.

Now if you said that the Colts and Orioles fans stopped supporting the teams, you would be right in principle. Yes, there are reasons, but the bottom line, is that no one was/is in the stands. Therefore, your statement would be correct.

Sam Hill
01-02-2011, 10:38 PM
C'mon Sam, you know that when a team wins a title for two, there is a honeymoon period where fans will show up just because. You know that.

So they showed up for four years JUST BECAUSE?

The biggest icon in the history of the sport - and one of the biggest in the history of American sports - retires, they dismantle the team, they win 13, 17 and 15 games the next three years, people continue to show up and you think it's because of a "honeymoon period" because a group of other guys won "a title (f)or two?"

No, you don't actually think that (I hope). You've just been caught in an idiotic statement that shows your complete lack of knowledge on a subject, but you just continue blithely on as if we're the ones who don't get it.

You've just proven you know jack**** about Chicago and Chicago sports. The Bulls were dismantled. Dismantled. They were horrible. As well as dysfunctional (hey, Merry Christmas, Tim Floyd!). But you'd like us to believe it was "a honeymoon period" after they won "a title (f)or two." With a straight face, you type this.

You've got issues, man. Serious issues. Just admit you're wrong and be done with it. You know nothing about this issue.

BlastFan
01-03-2011, 01:56 PM
Its not fair to say "Chicago doesn't deserve an expansion team." They absolutely do. Any team that can be added at the last minute, like they were, and fill the role of defunct teams deserves to be playing in the league.

I do agree they will fail eventually. But for now, they are serving their purpose and they do deserve to be part of this league for doing so.

Soccer-Man
02-06-2011, 08:00 PM
What an absolute disgrace the City of Chicago and the Riot are. To stage a game on SuperBowl Sunday in the direct path of the game is stupid. I watched some of the game and you guessed it: there's nobody there.

Just when I thought the Milwaukee Wave had the market on stupidity locked down and all to themselves, here come the Chicago Riot. Unbelieveable!!!


SHAME

Sam Hill
02-17-2011, 10:33 PM
You do know they didn't have a lot of choice in the matter, right? They don't exactly control their arena like The Honorable Ed Hale does. They take the dates they can get.

Regardless, I'm not quite sure why this makes "the City of Chicago" a disgrace. You seem to have quite the hard0n for Chicago for some unknown reason.

From what I can gather, Chicago was a stopgap team thrown together at the last minute to enable the league to play at all this year. They couldn't have played with just four teams. So when the person you recruit to fill out your poker game isn't very good, don't complain if you wouldn't have been able to play at all without them.

By the way, it looks like the disgrace of a team actually beat your Blast once and only lost to them by 4, 1 and 5 points. Seems to me you should be pumping them pretty regularly if you're the brilliant be-all and end-all.

Lastly, how is your life impacted one iota if no one attends a game in Chicago? You have yet to adequately explain how that keeps Baltimore from drawing fans. If there's going to be all this expansion in the MISL and the league is doing so well that it's going to average 5,000 a game in attendance this year, I guess the Riot can't be hurting the league too much, now, can they?

CorA
02-20-2011, 06:56 PM
Soccer-Man: You seem to think that everyone in Chicago knows about the Riot. Are a disgrace if only us and the 1000 people in the stands know they even exist? Just because the the Riot have the "Chicago" name on it doesn't mean they are a Chicago team! How are they a disgrace to Chicago they aren't even a Chicago team. You know NOTHING about Chicago sports and are making useless posts. The Sears Centre, Expo Center, Allstate Arena, etc. are not part of Chicago. The Allstate Arena is doing great anyway and the Wolves are at the top for attendance. The Sears Centre just changed ownership and are doing better. They just got a new hockey team (Announced a year and a half before their first season).

If you really knew about Chicago (AND LIVE THERE LIKE I DO!) you would know how great the fans are here. Chicago can greatly support two baseball teams. Why did you throw in the Sox for your false list of failing franchises and buildings? I'm a Cubs fan and I can easily say the Sox do better than well. The only reason the Hawks weren't supported until recently was because the past owner didn't care. When the Bulls sucked they had good attendance several years after. I have never known a 5 year "honeymoon." What do you have against Chicago?

Soccer-Man
02-21-2011, 05:44 PM
Soccer-Man: You seem to think that everyone in Chicago knows about the Riot. Are a disgrace if only us and the 1000 people in the stands know they even exist? Just because the the Riot have the "Chicago" name on it doesn't mean they are a Chicago team! How are they a disgrace to Chicago they aren't even a Chicago team. You know NOTHING about Chicago sports and are making useless posts. The Sears Centre, Expo Center, Allstate Arena, etc. are not part of Chicago. The Allstate Arena is doing great anyway and the Wolves are at the top for attendance. The Sears Centre just changed ownership and are doing better. They just got a new hockey team (Announced a year and a half before their first season).

If you really knew about Chicago (AND LIVE THERE LIKE I DO!) you would know how great the fans are here. Chicago can greatly support two baseball teams. Why did you throw in the Sox for your false list of failing franchises and buildings? I'm a Cubs fan and I can easily say the Sox do better than well. The only reason the Hawks weren't supported until recently was because the past owner didn't care. When the Bulls sucked they had good attendance several years after. I have never known a 5 year "honeymoon." What do you have against Chicago?

Thanks for making my point. The fact that no one knows about the Riot is the fault of the management. Playing in a 3,000 seat arena should mean that overhead is low and it should also afford them the opportunity to return next year. But the Riot's front office need to step their game up. I realize that the led time was very short, but now they will have an off season to work things through.

I stand by my point of Chi-Town not being much of a sports city, but hey if Indianapolis can see the good in Bob Irsay, I guess anything is possible.


SHAME

CorA
02-24-2011, 08:57 PM
Chicago was named #1 Sports City in the USA 3 times http://www.suntimes.com/sports/2779742,chicago-best-sports-city-sporting-news-06.article
Ranked 4th in Best Fans: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/476182-top-50-us-sports-cities#page/48

Chicago is able to passionately support 2 MLB baseball teams, an NBA basketball team, an NHL hockey team, a NFL football team, a MLS soccer team, and several minor league teams (Wolves are among the top of the AHL in attendance and are on TV, Single-A Cougars baseball, the Slaughter IFL team won the fan base award in 2010http://www.goifl.com/media/newsarchive/index.html?article_id=2589, and the Rush (AFL) do very well in attendance).
http://www.chicagotraveler.com/chicago_sports.htm
Does this change your mind because there is more?

What about Chicago doesn't make it a sports town?

wasteland
02-24-2011, 10:19 PM
What about Chicago doesn't make it a sports town?

Obviously lackluster attendance at semi-pro indoor soccer games. :-D

Sam Hill
02-25-2011, 05:14 PM
What about Chicago doesn't make it a sports town?

It's not Baltimore.

Duh.

Soccer-Man
03-01-2011, 04:24 PM
Chicago was named #1 Sports City in the USA 3 times http://www.suntimes.com/sports/2779742,chicago-best-sports-city-sporting-news-06.article
Ranked 4th in Best Fans: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/476182-top-50-us-sports-cities#page/48

Chicago is able to passionately support 2 MLB baseball teams, an NBA basketball team, an NHL hockey team, a NFL football team, a MLS soccer team, and several minor league teams (Wolves are among the top of the AHL in attendance and are on TV, Single-A Cougars baseball, the Slaughter IFL team won the fan base award in 2010http://www.goifl.com/media/newsarchive/index.html?article_id=2589, and the Rush (AFL) do very well in attendance).
http://www.chicagotraveler.com/chicago_sports.htm
Does this change your mind because there is more?

What about Chicago doesn't make it a sports town?

Point is CorA, you can make up anything to prove whatever point your trying to make; such as Chicago was named #1 sports city.....etc, etc, etc.

What does it mean when a city the size of Chicago only (and barely) supports the big 4 leagues. And the NHL, the White Sox and to some degree the Bulls only get fully supported when they win. We've already been over this.

A city the size of Chicago has failed arenas such as the Sears Center (brand new), The UIC Pavilion (fully renovated), All State Arena. This is sad. We have seen NLL, MISL1, MISL2, NPSL, AFL teams all fail. A city the size of Chicago WILL NOT support mid-level professional sports.

You can take offense to what I'm saying and quote bogus claims to how great that city is, but the facts never lie. Therefore, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

SHAME

preeths
03-01-2011, 04:51 PM
The Wolves? The Cougars? You also just can't ignore facts to make your point.

CorA
03-01-2011, 09:46 PM
Soccerman: I wasn't making up points, I even gave links. As you said, we have been over the Rush, too. Again, they didn't fail, the league did. Second, the Sears Centre was failing because of its ownership. Now they have new ownership and are showing improvements. The Slaughter remain at the top of their league (IFL) in attendance. You can look at the stats on goifl.com for proof. As for the NHL Blackhawks, good luck if you want to find good tickets. They started selling well before they won the Stanley Cup. I don't know where you find your stats for the Big Four but Chicago can greatly support their teams. What is your point about the Allstate Arena and UIC Pavillion? I gave FACTS, not my opinion and the only one lying is you. I am done with this argument, it is stupid. I won't argue with someone who makes false statements and cannot admit he is wrong. Stop avoiding facts and calling them my opinion:mad:

YOU ARE A SHAME!!!

wasteland
04-04-2011, 12:29 PM
the Bulls only get fully supported when they win.

Posted today on fox sports top 10 list of the NBA's best fans:

Despite being one of the few teams that can rival the Knicks for worst of the past decade honors, the Bulls are peerless when it comes to packing the stands. Chicago has finished outside the top five in total attendance only once since 2001 and has sat first or second eight times during that span. Simply put, Bulls fans stood by their team well before Derrick Rose was on his way to an MVP award, and earn our nod for best fans in the NBA

wasteland
04-04-2011, 12:32 PM
Second, the Sears Centre was failing because of its ownership.

I find it hard to consider that a Chicago arena anyways, it's closer to Rockford than downtown.

Soccer-Man
06-06-2011, 07:31 PM
The Wolves? The Cougars? You also just can't ignore facts to make your point.

Actually, from what I have gathered (just rumors at this point), Chicago may still be in the plans. I will leave it at that for now.

Nevertheless, I still thank Chicago is bad for indoor soccer and hopefully, the USL agrees.


TO BE CONTINUED...

Soccer-Man
09-19-2011, 08:49 AM
Actually, from what I have gathered (just rumors at this point), Chicago may still be in the plans. I will leave it at that for now.

Nevertheless, I still thank Chicago is bad for indoor soccer and hopefully, the USL agrees.


TO BE CONTINUED...

By now you have all heard of the continued debacle of another team in Chicago. No secret here as I was all over this story months ago.


Special Commentary coming soon...

Sam Hill
09-22-2011, 02:04 PM
I know the standards of journalism have slipped a bit over the years, but when, exactly, did alluding to rumors become synonymous with being "all over this story months ago?"

You're a fraud. You're an idiot. You don't know a thing.

Sam Hill
09-22-2011, 09:34 PM
So....why weren't you "all over" the story of Chicago actually not playing this year, Mr. Investigative Journalist?

Of course, you'll either claim you knew but were waiting to see if, indeed, it played out that way before you said anything, and in the next breath you'll claim you actually did report it and you'll take credit for a scoop and blah blah blah blah.

You're a poser.

Trish_lvs_Baltimore
10-20-2011, 11:28 AM
Sam was dead-on with this. The Chicago Kick couldn't secure a venue, so they won't be playing this year, either...

Soccer-Man
06-22-2012, 08:13 PM
Same song. Same ole Chicago. The MISL will never learn. Chicago is not a sports town, let alone one that will support indoor soccer.

This domino, when it falls will drop on the Miwaukee Wave. This could spell the end of the MISL.

nksports
06-22-2012, 11:49 PM
Chicago is not a sports town, let alone one that will support indoor soccer.

I want some of the stuff you're smoking dude. Not a sports town??? Da Bears, Da Bulls, Da Cubs, Da Sox, Da Blackhawks (or Da Hawks in local parlance), Da Fire.
No they don't support indoor soccer because all of the Chicago teams in indoor soccer history have been pretty mickey mouse organizations.

Sam Hill
06-24-2012, 11:37 PM
Chicago is not a sports town, let alone one that will support indoor soccer.

Do we really need to have this conversation again? The one you got your ass handed to you on last time?

Again, idiot. You're so unbelievably stupid, it's incredible.

BlastFan
06-27-2012, 04:21 PM
Do we really need to have this conversation again? The one you got your ass handed to you on last time?

Again, idiot. You're so unbelievably stupid, it's incredible.


I agree with you 100% on this one Sam. He is crazy.

Chicago has two MLB teams (only other cities that do are LA and NYC) and they have the Chicago Bulls, which may I add, my favorite basketball team. Not to mention the soccer team and hockey team (which Baltimore doesn't have).

BlastFan
06-27-2012, 04:24 PM
Chicago is not a sports town, let alone one that will support indoor soccer.

Maybe that's why, if they get a owner like Lindenberg or Hale, they will (finally) establish a good team there. I don't think Baltimore is that much of a sports town... maybe that's why the Blast do so well there... (And btw, unlike Baltimore, they have a MLS team, so they obviously have an interest in soccer.)

Soccer-Man
07-04-2012, 05:08 PM
Look, my words are the truth. The City of Chicago will support the big 4 leagues, especially if those teams are winning. It wasn't that long ago that the white Sox played in empty Commiskey Park (both old and new). It wasn't that long ago that the Blackhawks played in empty United Center. I remember the Bulls playing in empty Chicago Stadium. The Bears and Cubs have had constant support. The smaller leagues are NOT supported at all. Therefore, Chicago supports 2 teams.

I hold Chicago to a higher level because it's the third most populous city in America. No excuses need apply.

SHAME

preeths
07-04-2012, 07:25 PM
Do you realize how many well-supported minor league baseball teams play in the Chicago area? What about the Chicago Wolves, one of the best draws in the American Hockey League? Didn't we go through all this with you not long ago?

Pounder
07-04-2012, 09:14 PM
If Ed Hale was the pioneer who could truly grow the game, he'd have taken over the league- or formed a new one- LONG ago.

I don't think there are other owners like Lindenberg or Hale out there, because indoor soccer (in a "major" capacity) has run its course, and no good owner truly motivated to improving the biz is going there.

Just an aside, folks in the soccer community are often very leery of each other. Sometimes, people invent leagues to show off their own teams. I could argue the WPSL was like that, but ballooned when it stopped being a Sacramento lovefest. If I'm wrong about about owners not being interested, the next possibility is that wannabe owners think Hale is trying to bring them in as a prop while Baltimore benefits. Sometimes you have to share the wealth, so to speak.