While better atmosphere has been the principal argument made in favor of MLS clubs moving to smaller stadiums, the current playoffs have demonstrated another reason for making the move to soccer-specific stadiums: convenience. MLS and ABC would have loved to have Game 2 of the Western Conference final between Los Angeles (No. 1 market) and Chicago (No. 3) on Sunday afternoon, but the game had to be played at Soldier Field on a Friday night because the football Bears were playing there Sunday afternoon. To the credit of the FireÆs fans, a crowd of almost 33,000 turned out, but national television viewers missed out on the game. Because all but two MLS clubs — D.C. United and Miami — currently have to share their stadiums with pro or college football teams, scheduling conflicts often arise in the fall. Since the NFL doesnÆt announce its schedule until the spring, after the MLS season has begun, MLS clubs, who are secondary tenants, must scramble to find alternate dates late in the regular season. The only dates often left are lousy midweek dates. The same problem arises during the playoffs. To be sure, the Fire drew a big crowd on a Friday night, but what would it have been if the game was played on a Saturday night or Sunday afternoon? Then there is the case of the Colorado Rapids, who were forced to play on a Monday night and drew just 6,000 for their first-round match with the Fire. Finally, we make one more case for soccer-specific stadiums: aesthetics. Of the three conference finals broadcast nationally, only the D.C. United-Columbus game in Washington had the look of a real soccer game, unblemished by the football markings. MLS owners are reluctant to spend money on soccer-only stadiums, but their game will always have a borrowed look until they make the investment.