Talk:Major League Soccer/Archive 2

MLS and foreign stars
I'm not very happy with this section, it needs some cleaning up. For example, "Who knows which elite world-class athlete will be next?" This is NOT Wikipedia style. I would've changed it myself but it was the general feeling I was displeased with so I thought I'd mention it to you guys. Suggestions? Psyklax 14:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest we get rid of the "cheer-leading" attitude some of the editors have taken to adding on this page. Sure we can point out the reasons for optimism for the league, but it should not be done in such a manner. Even I, a big fan of MLS, thought it smacked of propaganda. Oh, and if you're wondering what edits I'm responsible for on the page, look no further than the ownership & profitability sections-I started both of those and did the original early revisions that are still mostly with the page today. Those sections, though, also are in need of some cleaning up. I think the Fire information in profitability ought to go, but I may be overruled. Drakeguy 21:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What I wrote was just a list of foreign players crucial to the early years of the league. These foreign players were voted into MLS All-Star Games and Best XI's, and won all kinds of league awards. Now, the Early American Players - the Harkes and Balboas - that's another interesting story. The Foreign Star (Ex. Etchevarry) and the American Player (Ex. Harkes) - two important groups of players in the early years of MLS, certainly facts worthy of note somewhere in our wiki I would think. da bum 19:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly which elite world class athletes are you talking about? The MLS never gets players until they are washed up. Do you really think Real Madrid would have sold David Beckham to the LA Galaxy if he was still playing good? He's past his glory days. Just look at Juan Pablo Angel. He's supposedly the best in the league right now, having won player of the month for may 2007. I'm colombian and i can tell you that Angel is a joke in Colombia. Nobody wants him. He was with Aston Villa for a long time and did absolutely nothing, that's why he went to the MLS. I've never heard of an elite player in their prime being sold into the US, except maybe Galvan Rey who wasn't that good anyway.

TV, Radio, and Internet Broadcast Coverage
This section strikes me as a little too promotional. I have already deleted the line: "Check local listings for local tv and radio coverage in your area." I am considering deleting the remainder of the section if there is no objection in the next few days. --Cougs2000 15:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * TV money is an important part of sports these days, thus it deserves to be listed. Nyrmetros 18:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree...and the financial side of the MLS's TV deals is discussed in the "profitability" section of the article. The "TV, Radio, and Internet Broadcast Coverage" section seems to be more promotional in that it is telling people where they can find MLS games in their TV listings...I don't believe that Wikipedia is intended for such promotional purposes.  I will take more comments, however, before deleting the section. --Cougs2000 18:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

cleanup required
I just added the cleanup tag to this article. As I expressed before, lots (and now, lots more) of irrelevant, unimportant and redundant information have littered this article. Some here have suggested remedies for individual sections of the article; I'm proposing something more of a widescale review and rewrite. Many sections can be merged together or spun off into additional pages, while I believe major portions of the article should be deleted altogether (i.e. it shouldn't be necessary to detail every rebranding or every stadium situation). I'll be happy to do the cleanup if no one objects or gets to it before me, but I'll wait a few days for comments. Roehl Sybing 13:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I say go ahead and cleanup this article. I just tried to clean up the MLS Club names section. I too think this article is way too long. It's longer than the articles on most European leagues that have existed for 100 years and MLS has existed for only 12 seasons. KitHutch 23:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Some of it is done - if people are bothered by some of the changes, they are free to discuss it here. I'm thinking of cutting out the Organization section entirely, as it fails WP:NOT, and single-entity structure is already mentioned elsewhere. Again, I'll wait a couple of days for any responses. Roehl Sybing 14:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think section 1.2: Club names and Section 3: MLS and foreign stars Can both go. --Elliskev 15:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This is what I did: I moved the competition format up, removed Organization and Foreign Stars, and added to the history section while giving "expansion, contraction...", "ownership" et al. their own section under Organization. History, I think, should focus more on the on-field product than anything else, and it really didn't before now. Roehl Sybing 02:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything else to be done to remove the cleanup tag? Rballou 23:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed my own tag, satisfied that the article is sufficiently culled of alot of useless information. I suggest, though, that statistics and notable players be spun off into a new page. The new table for MLS Cup results also doesn't need to be on this page as there is also a separate page for MLS Cup; I have left it there for someone else to delete if they agree. All in all, this page is alot better than before, but still requires a bit of work. --Roehl Sybing 13:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I spent a fair amount of time writing the "MLS and Foreign Stars" section (now deleted). Hated to see it go, but, overall, I think the article is much, much better now than before. Lean and mean. Great job! You know, though, in the early years, if there would have been no Marco Etchevarry's, there would have been no league! Today we have our American players. But, maybe I didn't do it the best way, but, somehow, I just felt - and stil feel - that somehow these foreign players deserve some kind of special mention in the early history of MLS. Best regards. da bum 19:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

playoffs confusion
I'm sure I could look this up on BigSoccer, but I find the playoff section confusing. It seems to imply that the teams that get in are: 1W, 2W, 1E, 2E, and then the next four regardless of conference, by points. But then it talks about conference championships. That introduces a question or two. Say 5 western teams and 3 eastern teams contest the playoffs. Does one western team "cross over" into the east, like Canadian gridiron apparently goes? Nacional Tijuana aka --&#123;&#123;User:Coryma}} 22:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's nice when people answer their own questions! Not so confusing after all! --Roehl Sybing 13:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the wording is, for me and some others, ambiguous. But, I'll take that as a "You are correct about the "crossover", sir.", since even the MLS page seems not to want its fans to know the truth. --&#123;&#123;User:Coryma}} 15:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a Wikipedia article. It has no feelings or desires, hence the word "want" seems kind of odd.  I have added the playoff crossover into the article, but if it is not sufficient or if doesn't make you happy (as it appears), remember that Wikipedia is not a primary source either; if you are dissatisfied with the content, research it and rewrite it. --Roehl Sybing 15:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

salary cap
maybe I just missed it but does MLS have a cap? and if so what kind... thanks the TRUTH 21:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, MLS does have a salary cap. It is around $2 million per team.  Each team is also allowed to sign one player whose salary does not count against the cap. KitHutch 18:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, their salary does count against the cap, but only $400,000 of it. --Crosscountrycpjon (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

History section

 * NOTE: Your recent edits are MUCH BETTER than before. It is a lot more balanced than the league operation overkill you sought for the history section not too long ago. --Roehl Sybing 04:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about you misunderstanding the comments I made on the organization section. I have a tendency to use caustic humor that others may not catch onto when I'm amused by someone's editing or comments. For example, "::In addition, I dispute your implication that American soccer is not primarily about "the sport on the field.""

Now a quick look at the very beginning of the organization section itself would have been more than enough for you to have figured out why I was asking if you'd read it. Quote, "Organization

Major League Soccer has been known more for its front office and management dealings than its on-field product [1]. In the off-season, expansion, contraction and rebranding have become buzzwords for the league and its fans. Recently the league has started to focus on improving the quality of play its teams produces on the field via new rules like the Designated Player Rule and through the creation of a league-wide youth development system [2]."

See what I mean?

That said, I'm all for expanding some of these sections to full articles. What I think we should do is make mention of the really important off-field things in league history, provide links to their articles, and figure out which events and things in the league merit this treatment. Reserve Division for sure needs its own article, just like you said. I would also say that the Youth Development System in MLS will probably need to be started, although it will probably be a stub for some time. What primarily I think we need to do is to mention these things briefly, in chronological order, and then provide linked articles for our readers to mull over.

You've also got my vote on the single entity league organization structure article-every new American league seems to have adopted it in an effort to contain costs and maximize profits. Definitely a notable thing in sports these days.

And one thing-there is a considerable difference between the sports culture of European "clubs" and MLS "franchises". The words alone should explain why this league's page is somewhat different than say the Dutch Eredivise's page. Drakeguy 21:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * None of the distinctions you've drawn between MLS and other leagues/sports seem very compelling to me. They call it clubs, we call them franchises.  They call it football, we call it soccer.  I before e except after c.  Sorry, just not convinced.


 * I was the one who wrote the intro to the organization section. The fact that it's in the organization section is proof that league operations belong primarily in that section.


 * Just don't be so heavy with the league business in EVERY section. On-field history deserves a place that is primarily its own, and sorely needs expansion.  It is a shame that you have nothing to contribute along those lines, so all I can ask you for is balance.  As I said, your edits are much better, but I'm going to say they can still use improvement.  Frankly, I'm fine with what's there in terms of league operations mentions in the history section, let's not spoil it. --Roehl Sybing 00:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine with what's there? Even if it doesn't mention a number of on-field related events like the youth development system or state when the Designated Player Rule came into effect? And you didn't write the intro to the organization section. I know because for one thing I had to re-edit it to how it stands today. You might have started it, but you shouldn't claim everything.

And I do think there is a very distinct set of differences between European and American football(soccer). In Europe, the league's have promotion and relegation (no leagues in American history have had this), they also have NO salary caps, whereas in the MLS you do have salary caps. In Europe you have overall league governing bodies like here in the US, but one buys a European club only to win (except for new American owners), whereas the goal of a MLS franchise owner is to both win and profit. Why else would Abrahmovic (Chelsea's owner) care absolutely nothing about how much money he spends to win while Phil Anschutz's LA Galaxy were bragging about how they've already made their money back on David Beckham? That's a HUGE sports culture difference.

Also you have no centralization of player contracts in Europe-Name me one European league where the central league office conducts and holds all player contracts. Name me one European league with a single entity organization. Name me a major European league that purposely restricts the number of foreign players in its squads. Name me a major European club that would ever consider moving itself to an entirely new metro area-this has happened in MLS and in most American sports leagues. Name me one European league that plays its season primarily during the summer. That is just the beginning of the differences between MLS and European leagues.

Quote, "It is a shame that you have nothing to contribute along those lines, so all I can ask you for is balance."-Yes, it's a good thing one of us isn't taking this personally, although I find it entertaining that you think the only thing I've ever contributed to this page had to deal with league organization. When you make such a critique, then be prepared to back it with your own editing history. And seeing as how you haven't done much for a history section you call shabby, I'm inclined to believe you need to start backing your own words with more additions to the history section. Drakeguy 04:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, that is not a personal slam. I'm simply saying you should take it as a challenge to improve the section. Your critiques are all well-intentioned, but I would appreciate it if you would make a considerable effort on your part in improving the section you are complaining about. I've at least gotten a start on it. Hopefully you can impress everyone with your alluded-to editing ability. I hope to see your editing efforts shortly. Drakeguy 05:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

World Cup years
I haven't found the answer to this in wiki or the whole interweb (so I probably missed it), but what does the MLS do during the WC summer? I can't imagine that they just carry on regardless. I'm guessing that they have a gap for a month or two, but I genuinely don't have a clue. (Incidently, if Galaxy are concerned about Becks being away for England matches imagine how they'll feel if he gets picked in the Euro2008 squad! :Z) Aheyfromhome 22:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am quite sure that they just play the season normally any way, but try to schedule more games after the WC ends. MLS season goes until October, so MLS usually gets a boost in attendance after the world cup (especially when the US teams does well). Anyone please correct me if I am wrong.  --Crosscountrycpjon 03:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * During the last World Cup, MLS carried on as normal. It was the only league in the world that continued to play during the World Cup. KitHutch 17:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Really? Wow, thats a really good fact. Worthy of being put in the article if we can find some sort of reference for it. Aheyfromhome 21:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Promotion / Relegation
There is no mention of it. I know there is no promotion system in the MLS, it would be nice to know the official reasoning behind it and if there are any plans, talks or the lack thereof.
 * I remember reading statements from MLS stating that promotion/relegation is a long-term goal for the future, but not something that is possible at this time (likely due to financial constraints). I don't have a concrete article reference, I just remember reading it at one point or another. In my personal opinion, unless some kind of deal is reached with USL, promotion/relegation will never happen in MLS, or at least not for many many years from now.  Also, remember to sign your posts please.  --Crosscountrycpjon 02:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Notable Players and Former Notable Players
I would like to know how we come about designing a list of 'notable' players (current and former). If anybody has a logical explanation to this I would like to know, otherwise, I don't think that this 'controversial' section should be included in the article. USSoccerfan11301993 20:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The list needs some serious trimming. At least two thirds of the players on the list aren't notable at all.

89.152.28.21 13:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I have been considering this issue for a while now. My belief is that the whole section should be removed as notable player lists can be found on individual team entries. Additionally, there is no reason to prove to readers that the league has a large amount of "notable players" most of which few people recognize. м info 16:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. If enough people agree, I see no reason why we should consider such a list. USSoccerfan11301993 03:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

International Tournaments in History section
It seems to me that even though this article is devoted strictly to MLS, we should be making an effort to catalogue the international play and successes of its clubs. Currently there is very little in the History section on international play, although I have added the inaugural Superliga because I think it merits attention. If anyone else could please help improve the section by finding what competitions MLS teams have won internationally, that would be a big help. Drakeguy 01:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Please explain the 3rd point of the Competition format
After the first sentence the next 2 lines get really confusing; specifically:

''... In the event that a team which finishes fifth or lower in their conference qualifies, that team will be placed in the other conference's playoff bracket [#1]. In the first round of this knockout tournament, aggregate goals over two matches determine the winners; the Conference Championships are one match each [#2], with the winner of each conference advancing to MLS Cup.''


 * 1) What do you mean by playoff bracket? What are the repercutions of this?
 * 2) You specify the way to determine winners, then a semilcolon and then talk about the Conference Championships... are these part of the play offs? What's the special importance of the Conference Championships?

The playoff system is a knockout competition of the top 8 teams in MLS to decide the champion, like most other American sports (just recently, the Super Bowl).

The top 2 in each conference make the playoffs. Then the next 4 teams overall, regardless of conference, make the playoffs. This means 5 can make it out of one conference, and 3 from the other (which happens many times). The 5th team is placed as the 4th seed in the other conference's bracket.

The Conference Championships is the semifinals of the playoffs which determines the winners of each conference which will face each other in the finals. The first round of the playoffs a is 2 leg aggregate, while the conference championships and final are 1 only one game.

I hope that helps.Greecepwns (#1 Red Bulls Supporter) (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

sponsors in team list: why?
No other prominent soccer league in the world (and indeed, no soccer league in this country) has a corresponding Wikipedia article where it is deemed important to list the sponsors that each team has. I'm not nearly convinced of why this page should list sponsors for corresponding teams. --Roehl Sybing 23:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * While our leagues may not list jersey sponsors in their articles, many teams do list their jersey sponsors. There is no Wikipedia rule that all football league pages have to be the same. KitHutch 18:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Many teams also list their players, while this page does not. Should we list all of them as well?  How about jersey colors?  Number of different jerseys?  Number of jersey redesigns over the years?  Longest name ever to be printed on each team jersey?  I still don't see the significance. The rule for Wikipedia isn't "whether or not it's allowed," it's whether or not it's notable. Team sponsors on a league article? Far from it. --Roehl Sybing 22:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why jersey sponsorship isn't notable? Just because one person objects to the information doesn't make it non-notable. KitHutch 12:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this the best argument for notability? I believe an affirmative argument making the case for the information's significance with respect to the article in which it is contained has to be made. --Roehl Sybing 21:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "These guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles." (my emp.) Squirrel Killer 22:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * From the same guideline (emphasis mine): "Presumed" means a rebuttable presumption. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable. However, many subjects with such coverage may still not be worthy of inclusion – they fail What Wikipedia is not, or the coverage does not actually speak to notability when examined. For example, adverts, announcements columns, minor news stories, and coverage with low levels of discrimination, are all examples of matters that may not be evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation, despite the existence of reliable sources. --Roehl Sybing 23:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, that refers to topics, not content within. Squirrel Killer 14:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not trying to be difficult, but I don't believe the guideline makes that distinction. The qualifier "for example" at the end of the quote implies that the principle is open-ended and not restricted to whether or not article creation is warranted.  It doesn't make sense to apply a guideline specifically to a "topic" that wouldn't apply to the "content" in that topic. --Roehl Sybing 14:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It does make that distinction. In fact, the second page of guideline for notability is that distinction and there's a section ("Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content") specifically for that distinction. Since that distinction is so clearly defined, it makes sense by definition. Squirrel Killer 15:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because it doesn't directly limit article content does not rule out a content argument based on notability. Either way, I have to insist on someone detailing the notability of the details in question.  Otherwise, you don't mind if I insert a couple of extra columns for other information, too?  Information about jersey colors seems important to me, maybe also highlight teams with designated players as well as the names of designated players. --Roehl Sybing 00:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, not only does the Premier League, the Scottish Premier League and the FAI League of Ireland pages for their current seasons have shirt sponsors, they have the uniform manufacturers as well. While such a factoid taken alone may not be very notable, it is valid information about the team. Squirrel Killer 19:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected (I should've looked at it more closely). Nonetheless, the question of notability remains.  I don't like the current policy Wikipedia has about trivia, but I do think the information has to be relevant to the article in question.  On team pages, it seems relevant enough if people want it, but on this page it seems like another way to get insert indiscriminate information into the article.  Like I said, I think if we're going to allow what teams shirt sponsors have, let's have other equally "valid" information in the table as well.  Maybe jersey colors, or local television/radio coverage (which has been deleted when presented as a section), or profit/loss information, etc.  Those things, to me, are equally "valid," and are more interesting in my opinion. --Roehl Sybing 21:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Soccer fans seem to have a significant interest in their shirt sponsors. No, I don't understand it either. Given how frequently this information is included on other league pages, I suspect that this issue might be better addressed at WikiProject_Football Squirrel Killer 22:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, I'm just saying it doesn't belong in this article. --Roehl Sybing 23:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying this fight shouldn't be fought, I'm just saying that given the number of articles it could influence, it would better be fought in another place. Squirrel Killer 14:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with Squirrel Killer; this is a larger question for WikiProject Football. The precedent for including shirt sponsors has already been set by other leagues' articles. If that factoid is deemed too trivial, then it should be removed from all league articles.  howcheng  {chat} 19:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

MLS attendance figures
I added the average team attendance for 2007, to complement the stadium capacity. I know this is unpopular with one person, for unknown reasons, but it should be on the table. Otherwise, why have the stadium capacity? It's a bit deceptive to imply that a MLS team is filling an 80,000 seat football stadium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.125.190 (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I buy this logic. Gateman1997 (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The MLS attendance figures are already listed on the individual team pages. The team table is getting bloated. Some of the non-essential (or repeated) information needs to be removed. KitHutch (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Sure, I'll agree to that. We really need to streamline the team page since it is becoming so bloated. KitHutch (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not eliminate the jersey sponsor since half the teams don't have one anyway? Or better yet I'd strongly suggest removing the "Previous names" section. No other sport has that as they're largely irrelevant and listed many times in the history sections of the respective team's articles and in the team's infoboxes. Gateman1997 (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I put the 2007 attendance figures back. Please quit removing them, Kit.  Why are you so afraid of them?  If you are obsessed with removing something, remove the stadium capacity.  That's the most irrelevant piece of information in the table, especially without the attendance figures.  Besides, the attendance figures are obviously one of the pieces of information people are most interested in, and just because it is now 2008, it doesn't mean that people don't want to know what the average attendance of the LAST FULL SEASON.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.125.190 (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

First, you need to fix your grammar. Are you "afraid" of capital letters? I am not "afraid" of the 2007 attendance figures. They do not belong in a chart about the 2008 teams. Attendance figures are already listed on the teams' pages. I see no reason for the stadium capacity so I think that that should be removed too. We don't need every bit of information about MLS teams on this chart. It's getting too big. KitHutch (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The attendance figures FROM THE LAST FULL SEASON allows people to know how popular each team is. It makes it much more difficult to compare the teams fanbases if you have to go to each individual team page.  Why are you so offended by that?  Obviously, you're the only one who is troubled by having it on the table.  You even agreed that the attendances should stay (see your comments from January 10th), so if you keep deleting them, they'll keep reappearing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.125.190 (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I never agreed to having last season's attendance on the 2008 team table. I agreed that the jersey sponsors and previous names sections should be removed. KitHutch (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's just keep the attendance figures for now. I don't think there's an actual argument against them, and it's just become an editing war.

Petitepassionz (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the attendance figures should be on this page, especially in the 2008 team chart. Why not add the attendance figures for every season so that we can see how the "popularity" of each team has changed over the years? Why not both the highest single game attendance for each team on the chart? How about median attendance? That's a more accurate measure of a team's attendance statistically. I propose that they be added to the individual season summaries and removed from this page. KitHutch (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems like a pretty minor thing. The same arguments could be made to remove every other item in the table.  I personally don't think that the chart suddenly becomes overcrowded when the attendance is added, and it seems like a pretty basic statistic.  Especially if the stadium capacity is listed.  There's no reason to hide information.Petitepassionz (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The main pages for Major League Baseball and the National Hockey League list venue capacity, but not previous season's average. The main pages for the National Football League and the National Basketball Association list neither capacity nor averages. Various soccer leagues' season pages tend to list capacities, but not averages. Perhaps the best place for averages would be in the individual season pages, since that's where they're directly relevant. Squirrel Killer (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We need to be consistent with other articles. The average attendance should be removed. It should go on individual team pages and under each specific season. KitHutch (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree. If we want to keep attendance however an attendance section could be added to the article listing all team's attendance over the past 12 years. Gateman1997 (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * if you aren't going to have the attendance figures, then the stadium capacity shouldn't be there. it's deceptive to suggest that a mls team could fill an NFL stadium, which seems to be the underlying motivation in this debate.  obviously, redbull new york is not as popular as the ny giants or jets.  or even almost every other team in the mls.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.204.144 (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)