Most of the Western conference is sh*t; there are only five teams with a winning record, including us. The Eastern conf. is nearly as bad, having six teams with a winning record.
I remember reading the book Why England Lose (called Soccernomics in the States - highly recommended) and the authors posited that the inequality in the Premier League was actually a good thing, since without rich teams like Man U and Chelsea, the league would be an interminable and predictable procession of home wins and away losses. MLS seemingly has achieved that Platonic ideal of boredom. I remember trying to set up my fantasy team last week and being more stumped than ever because all of the teams were so average and all of the matches so blah.
MLS needs to take the brakes off of these teams and eliminate some of the the parity mechanisms, because ain't nobody paying $15 a month to watch Austin FC vs. Minnesota United.
I'm not buying that argument. Games between mediocre teams in the EPL can be just as dull as the same in the MLS. We get to enjoy the good games in the EPL because they tend to focus on the top teams, which are often the same 6-8 year after year. We also have a significant geographical difference compared to European leagues, so I believe some form of parity is necessary to maintain broad fan interest across the country. In addition, long distance travel is more of an issue here in the states, so we really shouldn't be scheduling games so close together because it leads to reduced practice time and mediocre efforts.
I'm not buying that argument. Games between mediocre teams in the EPL can be just as dull as the same in the MLS. We get to enjoy the good games in the EPL because they tend to focus on the top teams, which are often the same 6-8 year after year.
That's exactly the point though. The existence of those 6-8 "big" teams makes large numbers of Premier League fixtures relevant. Sure, Brentford vs. Bournmouth doesn't mean much to anyone, but Brentford vs. Man U, Man City, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, and even Spurs or Newcastle will actually draw some viewers just for the chance to see the "big" team strut its stuff.
Are there any teams in MLS that can attract a casual viewer just due to quality? Obviously a filler game like Charlotte vs. Montreal isn't drawing jack squat, but are even supposedly "big" teams like Seattle or Atlanta going to get neutral viewers for a mid-week game against Austin?
I'll watch El Trafico just because it's usually batshit insane, but other than that, I can't think of any non-Seattle game I'd go out of my way to see . . . and I've got Sounders tattoos and an MLS subscription, I'm about as hardcore as it gets in this audience.
I'm not buying that argument. Games between mediocre teams in the EPL can be just as dull as the same in the MLS. We get to enjoy the good games in the EPL because they tend to focus on the top teams, which are often the same 6-8 year after year.
That's exactly the point though. The existence of those 6-8 "big" teams makes large numbers of Premier League fixtures relevant. Sure, Brentford vs. Bournmouth doesn't mean much to anyone, but Brentford vs. Man U, Man City, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, and even Spurs or Newcastle will actually draw some viewers just for the chance to see the "big" team strut its stuff.
Are there any teams in MLS that can attract a casual viewer just due to quality? Obviously a filler game like Charlotte vs. Montreal isn't drawing jack squat, but are even supposedly "big" teams like Seattle or Atlanta going to get neutral viewers for a mid-week game against Austin?
I'll watch El Trafico just because it's usually batshit insane, but other than that, I can't think of any non-Seattle game I'd go out of my way to see . . . and I've got Sounders tattoos and an MLS subscription, I'm about as hardcore as it gets in this audience.
Well apparently, viewership and attendance for the MLS was peaking in 2022. I can't speak for the Apple+ viewers though. But given the current mediocre announcers on linear TV, I'm expecting it to decline. I can barely stand listening to them blather rubbish; all the good announcers are probably on Apple+.
I remember reading the book Why England Lose (called Soccernomics in the States - highly recommended) and the authors posited that the inequality in the Premier League was actually a good thing, since without rich teams like Man U and Chelsea, the league would be an interminable and predictable procession of home wins and away losses. MLS seemingly has achieved that Platonic ideal of boredom. I remember trying to set up my fantasy team last week and being more stumped than ever because all of the teams were so average and all of the matches so blah.
MLS needs to take the brakes off of these teams and eliminate some of the the parity mechanisms, because ain't nobody paying $15 a month to watch Austin FC vs. Minnesota United.
I'm not buying that argument. Games between mediocre teams in the EPL can be just as dull as the same in the MLS. We get to enjoy the good games in the EPL because they tend to focus on the top teams, which are often the same 6-8 year after year. We also have a significant geographical difference compared to European leagues, so I believe some form of parity is necessary to maintain broad fan interest across the country. In addition, long distance travel is more of an issue here in the states, so we really shouldn't be scheduling games so close together because it leads to reduced practice time and mediocre efforts.
There are mechanisms from other leagues that could be put in place to reduce travel and, to a lesser degree, schedule congestion: regional conference/division scheduling similar to what has/had been done in NHL and, dare I say it, promotion/relegation.
Even when we win, we're shit. Oh well, I'll take 3 pts and say maybe it was because Morris went off.
Most of the Western conference is sh*t; there are only five teams with a winning record, including us. The Eastern conf. is nearly as bad, having six teams with a winning record.
I guess this is the definition of "parity" according to MLS.
I'm not buying that argument. Games between mediocre teams in the EPL can be just as dull as the same in the MLS. We get to enjoy the good games in the EPL because they tend to focus on the top teams, which are often the same 6-8 year after year. We also have a significant geographical difference compared to European leagues, so I believe some form of parity is necessary to maintain broad fan interest across the country. In addition, long distance travel is more of an issue here in the states, so we really shouldn't be scheduling games so close together because it leads to reduced practice time and mediocre efforts.
There are mechanisms from other leagues that could be put in place to reduce travel and, to a lesser degree, schedule congestion: regional conference/division scheduling similar to what has/had been done in NHL and, dare I say it, promotion/relegation.
So, considering relegation, do you relegate one team from each conference, or the lowest ranked teams? The former may be unfair (depending on which conference is stronger), while the latter can leave the conferences unbalanced. I don't think the European approach is workable here, as the markets, culture, and geography are different. Perhaps a better approach would be to financially reward teams that make the playoffs, providing an incentive to compete. That's essentially what happens with relegation -- going down costs the team owners.
That's exactly the point though. The existence of those 6-8 "big" teams makes large numbers of Premier League fixtures relevant. Sure, Brentford vs. Bournmouth doesn't mean much to anyone, but Brentford vs. Man U, Man City, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, and even Spurs or Newcastle will actually draw some viewers just for the chance to see the "big" team strut its stuff.
Are there any teams in MLS that can attract a casual viewer just due to quality? Obviously a filler game like Charlotte vs. Montreal isn't drawing jack squat, but are even supposedly "big" teams like Seattle or Atlanta going to get neutral viewers for a mid-week game against Austin?
I'll watch El Trafico just because it's usually batshit insane, but other than that, I can't think of any non-Seattle game I'd go out of my way to see . . . and I've got Sounders tattoos and an MLS subscription, I'm about as hardcore as it gets in this audience.
Well apparently, viewership and attendance for the MLS was peaking in 2022. I can't speak for the Apple+ viewers though. But given the current mediocre announcers on linear TV, I'm expecting it to decline. I can barely stand listening to them blather rubbish; all the good announcers are probably on Apple+.
It strikes me that those numbers, at least as far as viewership goes, are a little misleading. We're talking about ABC/ESPN games, which are going to be the biggest games like Sounders/Timbers and El Trafico. I don't remember a lot of games in previous years being on free-to-watch ABC, so that might skew things. Adding a fairly large fanbase in Charlotte probably added new viewers, all of whom got to watch their team suck. In other words, I'm not sure this is really an indication of growth for MLS.
On thing that jumps out is that last year's numbers were "coming close to 2007’s record average of 357,000 viewers." Now, I understand that cord-cutting has ratings down across all of TV. But since 2007 - the Beckham year - MLS has added 16 new teams, including big fanbases in Seattle, Atlanta, and Charlotte and has apparently seen no growth in ratings. That's terrible.
I'm not buying that argument. Games between mediocre teams in the EPL can be just as dull as the same in the MLS. We get to enjoy the good games in the EPL because they tend to focus on the top teams, which are often the same 6-8 year after year. We also have a significant geographical difference compared to European leagues, so I believe some form of parity is necessary to maintain broad fan interest across the country. In addition, long distance travel is more of an issue here in the states, so we really shouldn't be scheduling games so close together because it leads to reduced practice time and mediocre efforts.
There are mechanisms from other leagues that could be put in place to reduce travel and, to a lesser degree, schedule congestion: regional conference/division scheduling similar to what has/had been done in NHL and, dare I say it, promotion/relegation.
Please don't speak regional divisions into existence. Travel sucks in America, especially for Seattle based teams, but the schedule congestion doesn't have anything to do with geography. There's too many international tournaments and creating another Champions League (League's Cup) was completely unnecessary for a league that has no talent past each team's top 12 players.
Do you guys think playing Vancouver 4 times will improve the quality of play on the field because players are more rested?
I support Promotion/Relegation, but we're about 10-20 years away from that. MLS needs to stop expanding and USL needs to be financially incentivized to compete.
Post by INVINCIBLE 2023 Fantasy Champ on May 30, 2023 17:33:55 GMT
Guys, pro/rel is NEVER going to happen in MLS. Ever, ever, ever. Team owners are not going to agree to a system that potentially makes their investment worthless. The possibility of relegation would ward off expansion teams, and since MLS is heavily dependent on expansion fees to keep the lights on, they aren't going to do anything to endanger that revenue stream.
Guys, pro/rel is NEVER going to happen in MLS. Ever, ever, ever. Team owners are not going to agree to a system that potentially makes their investment worthless. The possibility of relegation would ward off expansion teams, and since MLS is heavily dependent on expansion fees to keep the lights on, they aren't going to do anything to endanger that revenue stream.
What do you think happens when the music stops in this game of musical chairs? There's only another 5 cities or so that can support an MLS team. And there's no other Apple around the corner to overpay for a TV deal.
I think in 20 years we either have Pro/Rel or League's Cup expands enough to essentially be a Pro/Rel over MLS/Liga MX.
Well apparently, viewership and attendance for the MLS was peaking in 2022. I can't speak for the Apple+ viewers though. But given the current mediocre announcers on linear TV, I'm expecting it to decline. I can barely stand listening to them blather rubbish; all the good announcers are probably on Apple+.
It strikes me that those numbers, at least as far as viewership goes, are a little misleading. We're talking about ABC/ESPN games, which are going to be the biggest games like Sounders/Timbers and El Trafico. I don't remember a lot of games in previous years being on free-to-watch ABC, so that might skew things. Adding a fairly large fanbase in Charlotte probably added new viewers, all of whom got to watch their team suck. In other words, I'm not sure this is really an indication of growth for MLS.
On thing that jumps out is that last year's numbers were "coming close to 2007’s record average of 357,000 viewers." Now, I understand that cord-cutting has ratings down across all of TV. But since 2007 - the Beckham year - MLS has added 16 new teams, including big fanbases in Seattle, Atlanta, and Charlotte and has apparently seen no growth in ratings. That's terrible.
Hmm. Well wasn't that your original point, about certain teams being draws? Now you're trying to discredit the "misleading" stats based on the concept you'd said didn't exist in the MLS.
The total attendance at MLS games has increased every year since 2002, with the exception of the pandemic years. Sure, so too have the number of teams have increased. But the average attendance has also increased overall. I'm not all that concerned about the growth of the sport. Keeping it at least stable is good for now. People growing up playing the sport are going to want to follow it.
It strikes me that those numbers, at least as far as viewership goes, are a little misleading. We're talking about ABC/ESPN games, which are going to be the biggest games like Sounders/Timbers and El Trafico. I don't remember a lot of games in previous years being on free-to-watch ABC, so that might skew things. Adding a fairly large fanbase in Charlotte probably added new viewers, all of whom got to watch their team suck. In other words, I'm not sure this is really an indication of growth for MLS.
On thing that jumps out is that last year's numbers were "coming close to 2007’s record average of 357,000 viewers." Now, I understand that cord-cutting has ratings down across all of TV. But since 2007 - the Beckham year - MLS has added 16 new teams, including big fanbases in Seattle, Atlanta, and Charlotte and has apparently seen no growth in ratings. That's terrible.
Hmm. Well wasn't that your original point, about certain teams being draws? Now you're trying to discredit the "misleading" stats based on the concept you'd said didn't exist in the MLS.
The total attendance at MLS games has increased every year since 2002, with the exception of the pandemic years. Sure, so too have the number of teams have increased. But the average attendance has also increased overall. I'm not all that concerned about the growth of the sport. Keeping it at least stable is good for now. People growing up playing the sport are going to want to follow it.
I think the average attendance increasing has more to do with letting go of misguided teams like Chivas USA and bringing in teams in untapped markets like has happened in the Pac NW, Atlanta, and Charlotte. If attendance was really increasing then we'd see it happening with the Chicago Fire, Houston or DC United. But we're not.
The 2026 World Cup is well timed for the 'growth' of MLS, so I agree that they'll be fine long term. But right now, MLS is struggling to make the jump to the next level.
Post by sounderfan1974 on May 30, 2023 19:15:27 GMT
Sounds like this thread has completely morphed. That's cool.
In many ways, comparing soccer/football in this country to football leagues overseas is almost comparing apples to oranges. The most glaring thing IMHO is competition between sports. What other countries' sports compete with football overseas like Gridiron, Baseball, Basketball, Hockey, and many others (including college sports) do here? MLS is basically scrambling for scraps.
Maybe the Apple deal is the only way to go, since the networks look at $$$ and don't seem to want to touch it? I hate to say that since it pretty much locks out the proverbial "casual fan", like my mom & brother who would watch Sounders games but don't want to subscribe to AppleTV.
I wish I had the answer, because then I'd be a Millionaire!
Guys, pro/rel is NEVER going to happen in MLS. Ever, ever, ever. Team owners are not going to agree to a system that potentially makes their investment worthless. The possibility of relegation would ward off expansion teams, and since MLS is heavily dependent on expansion fees to keep the lights on, they aren't going to do anything to endanger that revenue stream.
What do you think happens when the music stops in this game of musical chairs? There's only another 5 cities or so that can support an MLS team. And there's no other Apple around the corner to overpay for a TV deal.
I think in 20 years we either have Pro/Rel or League's Cup expands enough to essentially be a Pro/Rel over MLS/Liga MX.
What is the benefit of pro/rel to the owners of MLS? Why would they agree to it? You're adding the threat of financial annihilation for the benefit of . . . what, exactly?
Maybe the Apple deal is the only way to go, since the networks look at $$$ and don't seem to want to touch it? I hate to say that since it pretty much locks out the proverbial "casual fan", like my mom & brother who would watch Sounders games but don't want to subscribe to AppleTV.
I'm becoming more and more convinced the Apple deal was the right move. The fact that ratings are still below where they were in 2007, despite the addition of 16 freaking teams, means television wasn't a major driver of growth for MLS. The streaming bubble won't last forever so it makes all the sense in the world to cash in with a bankruptcy-proof company like Apple.
carella211: Born in 1974,Sounders! Sounders! And now we win like never before, Sounders! Sounders! We love our boys in famous green, The greatest team you'll ever see. Seattle Sounders FC! CONCACAF Champions League victors!!!!
May 7, 2022 6:15:25 GMT
TSchulz: I enabled some "reactions" things today, for fun...let me know if there is some things that I should add!
Jun 16, 2023 22:27:37 GMT
Holden: Is the twitter sidebar no longer working because of the recent twitter changes restricting users without an account? Bummer.
Jul 10, 2023 20:52:23 GMT
Zafiro: Agreed - I miss the twitter sidebar
Jul 14, 2023 6:26:49 GMT
Zafiro: Can't decide whether to watch Barbie or Oppenheimer first. Guess it will come down to whatever I can stream for free.
Jul 17, 2023 15:41:03 GMT
Holden: I saw Oppenheimer last night. I would recommend, and I'll need to see it a second time myself. Slow burning historical drama with excellent cinema sound.
Jul 23, 2023 1:13:18 GMT
Zafiro: I'm eager to check out Oppenheimer. Really liked Cillian Murphy in Peaky Blinders.
Jul 26, 2023 5:19:00 GMT
Zafiro: No better place than Seattle in the summer. Enjoying another perfect day. Highs in upper 70s, night time lows in upper 50s, beautiful blue sky, dry and no annoying insects.
Jul 30, 2023 17:18:00 GMT
Holden: That gets an EBFG outta me.
Jul 30, 2023 21:40:35 GMT
Zafiro: Finally watched Barbie and although I must say that I was a little disappointed based on all the hype, I enjoyed it. Amazing sets and costumes, some funny stuff.
Dec 12, 2023 18:33:25 GMT
Zafiro: Still haven't watched Oppenheimer and have added Maestro to my "To Watch" list. Watched a Wes Anderson short of a Roald Dahl story "The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar" - two thumbs way up but you'll have to pay attention.
Dec 12, 2023 18:37:05 GMT
TSchulz: Merry Christmas y'all!
Dec 25, 2023 21:23:25 GMT
