Major League Lacrosse

[Hiawatha72]

I live in the heartland of lacrosse. It makes the scholastic and NCAA lacrosse make the local news highlights regularly. Since the NCAA created a championship in the 1970s, and a "Final Four" type tournament in 1983, lacrosse has failed to grow much beyond its original powerbase - upstate New York, Long Island, and Baltimore-Chesapeke area. Title IX has killed it's growth among NCAA programs. Women's lacrosse has grown because of Title IX, but it's not close to being the same sport.

Syracuse University has perhaps the most storied legacy in lacrosse. Ever since the "Final Four" type tournament has been created, SU has been to every Final Four (20 years now) and won 8 titles. SU draws 12,000 people to games but ticket prices are negligible. Many scholastic players go to games, as well as long time friends and family of the players or coaches. I doubt if SU even breaks even revenue-wise.

[BenchRobSmith]

Originally posted by Lone Star
I don't think MLS as a league should invest in MLL, I was just curious to see if MLL would be a welcome sport to play in any SSS's MLS investors might own someday.

It's a fair question, and I can't speak for anyone else, but I guess the point I was trying to make is that MLL is a dicey proposition to even exist when (if?) these stadiums are built.

If the league is around, I don't see any reason why it would be a bad idea to take their money. Clearly, the grass would get chewed up, but money's money. Plus, the extra income would facilitate better groundskeeping.

[Cabral]

Syracuse lacrosse in fact produced the legendary running back Jim Brown, who was discovered played goalie from Syracuse against Cornell. The rest is history.

I want to give lacrosse the benefit of the doubt as a Gen Z sport in solidarity with its fans from my experience with soccer bashers. But it will take 40 years for it to have a chance of happening... sure, my little cousins in Connecticut play lacrosse. But at this point that's just extraordinarily unrepresentative of the rest of America.

40 years ago, I think soccer was probably in a position a lot like lacrosse... 30 years ago, it had its first national league. This is the type of time-scale we're talking about for lacrosse to do anything...

- Kevin

[Upper90s]

Originally posted by Colin Grabow
I know that we have (had?) a MLL franchise here in DC but I read that the owner was threatening to move it because their attendance was so horrible. That was an Indoor team the Washington Power,

[cdmphy]

I just went to a game last week. Don't know the rules and have never played. But it's not a bad sport and I enjoyed the game. I think it will stay small but can probably continue to exist. I don't think it can really help the MLS other than as paying tenants in some locals and maybe helping Rochester get a stadium built, but it's better for the MLL to stay in small places where they can charge less and attract people who enjoy sport but are tired of the $$$. The game was $15, parking $3 and beer was $3. A revs game is $23, $15 and $6 and that's a bargain compared to the big 4.

[usagoal]

Originally posted by Upper90s
That was an Indoor team the Washington Power,

They moved to Denver.

[Soccerfan20]

Originally posted by Hiawatha72
lacrosse has failed to grow much beyond its original powerbase - upstate New York, Long Island, and Baltimore-Chesapeke area. Title IX has killed it's growth among NCAA programs.

While I agree with the start of the post, I won't touch the Title IX bullsh. . .

As a former lax player, fan of the game and someone that's been to a few MLL games, it's a great event. They have the same audience as much of the MLS. Let's not forget that many people consider soccer a suburban game as well. Lacrosse does not have the global support, but it's US base is MLS's base.

My questions about possible doubleheaders regards field lines, not the condition of the pitch. Lax lines are completely different than soccer lines. How do you change lines on a field for a doubleheader? Also, someone said if MLL wants to give us money to help promote, we should take it. The MLL has no money. . .none. The owners investory are not Lamar Hunt. Should be interesting to see what happens.

[microbrew]

Doesn't MLL and soccer have lots of the same demographics? Mostly male, college educated, upper middle class, etc. but without the soccer moms and the 'ethnic' contigent. Or is it because I'm in New Jersey?

[kenntomasch]

Originally posted by kenntomasch
There are many pretenders to the throne of "Fifth Major Sport", but it may in fact be that there won't be a "Fifth Major Sport" because there's no room for a "Fifth Major Sport".

MLL says they want to be the 5MS. MLS says they want to be the 5MS. The MISL says it wants to be the 5MS.

And, interestingly enough, in the latest issue of Shameless Plug for the X-Games.....uh, I mean ESPN The Magazine, an article from Peter Keating entitled "Big Eyes" with the subtitle, "There's a simple recipe for taking a sport big time. Few have all the ingredients."


"All small sports share an ambition: to be the next big thing. But it's unlikely that a 'fifth major' will arise. You just can't build a national audience anymore. 'Sports is too crowded,' says Sal Galatioto, head of the sports finance group at Lehman Brothers. 'It's hard for anything marginal to challenge the status quo.'

That said, a few sports are establishing themselves as strong businesses. The keys: a fan base large and loyal enough to fill stands, big-name sponsors and TV ad revnue. And that requires three things: good competition, strong management, and audience demand.

But you must have all three. Consider MLS. It's run by smart people, and Americans have shown they'll get caught up in soccer. But our biggest stars play in Europe, giving MLS a minor-league feel."

He had me right up until the end. It's arguable that American soccer's "biggest stars" play in Europe (It was Donovan and Mathis who got the SI covers), but it is true that the game's biggest stars don't play in MLS.

But the theory that there might not be a fifth major anytime soon (if at all) is, I think, a solid one.

[K.P.]

MLS should do it's best to see that MLL dies. The sport is extremely appealing -- perhaps more so than soccer to the casual american sports fan, since it's basically hockey on grass. And as others have pointed out, the demographics are extremely similar, not just in terms of fans but in terms of the athletes you're trying to attract.
I grew up in a town in nothern NJ that takes lacrosse very seriously, and I think the worst thing for MLS is that when lacrosse does take hold somewhere it tends to create all the same things soccer is trying to do, i.e. youth leagues and development from a very young age. Basically giving young kids a glimpse of lacrosse and then having them grow up tossing the lacrosse ball around and learning how to play that game isn't going to do anything but hurt MLS.

I mean, personally I like both games, but if I were running MLS I'd see all other sports as competition, but an active, outdoor, summer niche sport like lacrosse more so than most.

[kenntomasch]

"When lacrosse takes hold?" Okay.

I don't think MLS has a lot to worry about from MLL, and in any case, I wouldn't advocate wasting time and resources trying to put a league out of business that the vast majority of people haven't the slightest idea exists.

[Brownswan]

Lacrosse does not have what soccer has -- a World Cup of such stature that it dwarfs all other competitions. Even the Olympics, which are so fragmented, with a plethora of diverse sports clamoring for attention, lacks the build to a big finish that the World Cup offers. In fact, one usually begins to wonder when the Olympics will finally end!

Feeding the World Cup are several world class first divisions and hundreds of lesser leagues across the globe. If lacrosse ever got as big as hockey it still would not be a threat to MLS's survival. More kids playing lacrosse means fewer playing soccer, but also fewer playing baseball, hockey and other sports. Don't worry, it's a big country.

MLS needs to work at building itself, not about undermining other sports and leagues -- not that it could.

[Andy_B]

But the theory that there might not be a fifth major anytime soon (if at all) is, I think, a solid one.

One could argue that MLB and the NFL are more popular today than ever.

And one could argue that the NBA and NHL are close to their most popular point.

And one could then surmise that it probably would be very difficult for another sport to break through.

While it is not a "team" sport, NASCAR has smashed the "Major" sport status barrier into pieces at a time it should have been very hard to do.

Andy

[monster]

Originally posted by Hiawatha72
I live in the heartland of lacrosse. It makes the scholastic and NCAA lacrosse make the local news highlights regularly. Since the NCAA created a championship in the 1970s, and a "Final Four" type tournament in 1983, lacrosse has failed to grow much beyond its original powerbase - upstate New York, Long Island, and Baltimore-Chesapeke area. Title IX has killed it's growth among NCAA programs.


Not true.

1983 - 138 programs across all divisions, 4,519 players.
2001 - 202 programs, 6,591 players.

Lax has grown in pockets across the country. This year before the Final Four, the Baltimore Sun did a great article on its growth in Ohio and other midwestern states.

The Lax Final Four is one of the highest grosssing NCAA chanpionships. Next year when it is at Ravens Stadium, I bet they will get a good 30-40K for the title game if a Baltimore team is involved.

That hasn't translated to the pro game, where the Bayhawks are only averaging 3-4K at Ravens Stadium. Lax is in the same conundrum soccer is - participants don't make time to watch the highest level oftentimes.

Lax is not a threat to soccer. If it were, soccer teams fro Maryland would not succeed on the youth level. Gary Gait, the Bayhawks' coach, talked about the similarities and overlap between the two sports in glowing terms on sports radio in Baltimore a few months ago.

If scheduled right, an MLL team could be a nice tenant for a SSS.

[Miloco]

Señor Cabral, I'm the type of person who think that there is room for all Sport in this country. If some investors put together a league like MLL, is due to the fact that there are hungry fans out there who want to attend game and watch them on TV. Lately, many kid's been practicing Lacrose all over the country especially in those places that some people already mentioned in this post. The big question is, how much money will Major league lacrosse will pay MLS or a MLS stadium to play in?.. $3,000 a game? I dont know. If MLL is hoping to grow depending on MLS success, then they will fail.

[DoyleG]

Originally posted by Lone Star
As for the Washington team, I believe that's the Washington Power of the indoor National Lacrosse League. I think they're moving to Edmonton.

They moved to Denver. Plans for a team in Edmonton are in limbo.

[kenntomasch]

Originally posted by Andy_B
While it is not a "team" sport, NASCAR has smashed the "Major" sport status barrier into pieces at a time it should have been very hard to do.

True, and I would very much like to read an account of how they've been able to do it (anyone know if anything written is out there?).

It isn't a "team sport", as you say, and I think that sort of takes out out of the discussion, but it obviously has a very large (and very increased over ten years ago) popularity that can't be taken out of the discussion. I would put forward that part of that is its appeal to the working class, without which no sport in this country has been able to achieve true "major" status (part of soccer's problem as well). The misnomer of NASCAR as a "redneck" sport persists, though (I don't have the demographics handy, but I thought I remembered that something like 50% of NASCAR fans have college degrees).

But a team sport? Unlikely to happen. A team sport without much appeal outside a specific region, without a whole lot to offer about itself that is truly unique (it's another one of the "object goes into goal" sports that we already have a few of), that a very small percentage of people either play or have played, and that has a relatively short history of being played at a high level in this country? Even less likely, IMHO.

[K.P.]

Originally posted by kenntomasch
"When lacrosse takes hold?" Okay.

I don't think MLS has a lot to worry about from MLL, and in any case, I wouldn't advocate wasting time and resources trying to put a league out of business that the vast majority of people haven't the slightest idea exists.

I was talking about on the local level. There are a number of towns in NJ, and probably in upstate NY and other places where lacrosse is big, where it has established itself as the number one youth sport. Naturally that is detrimental to soccer, and if that success spreads then it becomes increasingly so. I didn't advocate "wasting time and resources," I just wouldn't rent any stadiums to MLL or seek to develop any stadium sharing deals with them.

[kenntomasch]

Not to spin off on a NASCAR tangent, but it's interesting that at least one NASCAR demographic website boasts that NASCAR's TV ratings have increased every year since 1990, but if these stats (from motorsportstv.com) are to be believed, they're not appreciably higher now than they were then:

Historical Winston Cup Broadcast Network Ratings

Year....#..Rate.Shr
1990....4..4.5..14
1991....4..4.4..12
1992....4..5.3..15
1993....5..4.8..13
1994....5..5.3..16
1995....7..4.9..14
1996....7..5.1..15
1997....9..5.6..16
1998...12..4.8..13
1999...12..5.4..14
2000...12..5.0..13

The cable ratings may have, in fact, gone up, but at least the broadcast ratings have held fairly steady, and they are superior to regular-season baseball.

[BenReilly]

Originally posted by kenntomasch
Not to spin off on a NASCAR tangent, but it's interesting that at least one NASCAR demographic website boasts that NASCAR's TV ratings have increased every year since 1990, but if these stats (from motorsportstv.com) are to be believed, they're not appreciably higher now than they were then:

Historical Winston Cup Broadcast Network Ratings

Year....#..Rate.Shr
1990....4..4.5..14
1991....4..4.4..12
1992....4..5.3..15
1993....5..4.8..13
1994....5..5.3..16
1995....7..4.9..14
1996....7..5.1..15
1997....9..5.6..16
1998...12..4.8..13
1999...12..5.4..14
2000...12..5.0..13

The cable ratings may have, in fact, gone up, but at least the broadcast ratings have held fairly steady, and they are superior to regular-season baseball.

No they are most definitely not. Talk about apples and orangutangs. Baseball is extremely succussful on television. It's just that there are dozens of games on per week in the USA. No one game will have the viewership of the ONE Nascar race. Televised baseball is one of the most highly priced commodities, approaching one billion dollars per year.