Major League Lacrosse

[dfb547490]

MLS and MLL have a lot to gain from each other. Lacrosse is a very regional sport (alto its popularity is growing in the midwest and, to a lesser extent, the Denver and San Francisco areas), but it is popular in the Northeast--the region that also boasts the heaviest concentration of current and potential MLS franchises.

Something that has been overlooked in this thread is that lacrosse is HUGE in the Philadelphia area. The Wings (pro indoor team) sell out the First Union Center every game, getting comparable attendance to the Flyers and Sixers. Mid-4-figure attendances for big high school games are not at all uncommon.

Another interesting point to raise is that Doug Logan (yes, THAT Doug Logan) is heading up a group that is looking into creating a pro rugby league in the US.

The point of all of this is that, the more potential tenants a stadium can have, the more likely the stadium is to be built. Not so much because there are more potential investors (Saint Phil has more than enough cash to build 10 22,000-seat stadiums), but because city councils are more likely to grant permission for the stadium to be built. Pitch a 22,000 seat stadium to a city council for an MLS team, and they might say no. But if you tell the city council that, altho the MLS team will be the primary tenant (say 20,000 fans a game), the stadium will also host a WUSA team (3-8,000/game), and a rugby and/or MLL team (probably 2-5,000/game), and your chances of getting permission to build are a lot better. Throw in a local college soccer team, open it up to high school soccer, lacrosse, and (during the MLS off-season only) pointyball games, as well as concerts and (again, during the MLS off-season only) outdoor fairs/trade shows, and you're set.

If MLS expands as I expect it to, by adding teams in Philly, New York, Rochester, Houston, St. Louis, and Seattle over the next 10-20 years, a number of potential joint sites emerge:

San Jose: MLS, WUSA, rugby, lacrosse
LA: MLS, WUSA, rugby
Seattle: MLS, WUSA, rugby
Colorado: MLS, rugby, lacrosse
Houston: MLS
Dallas: MLS, rugby
St. Louis: MLS, WUSA, lacrosse
Kansas City: MLS, rugby
New England: MLS, WUSA, rugby, lacrosse
Rochester: MLS, lacrosse
New York City: MLS, WUSA, rugby, lacrosse
Newark: MLS (Metros), rugby
Philly: MLS, WUSA, rugby, lacrosse
Chicago: MLS, WUSA, rugby
Columbus: MLS, lacrosse
DC: MLS, WUSA, rugby, lacrosse

There you have 4 strong leages: MLS (16 teams), WUSA (12 teams--9 above plus currently existing franchises in San Diego, Carolina, and Atlanta), rugby (12 teams), and NLL (8 teams).

Some of the rugby and lacrosse teams might have to find another place to play until MLS gets the stadiums built, but it will work.


Alex

[ElJefe]

Originally posted by 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.
Why should MLS care about a game when no one knows about it, nor cares about it, west of Pennsylvania and south of Virginia?

[DoyleG]

Originally posted by ElJefe

Why should MLS care about a game when no one knows about it, nor cares about it, west of Pennsylvania and south of Virginia?

Have you looked at the NLL?

[K.P.]

Originally posted by ElJefe

Why should MLS care about a game when no one knows about it, nor cares about it, west of Pennsylvania and south of Virginia?

Well first of all, people do know about and play it in certain regions west of pennsylvania and south of virginia, as other posters have outlined. In fact, the game is growing, again as other posters have pointed out.

To answer your question, sports is a competitive market, and although some argue that there are gains to be had from working with lacrosse (or rugby), I would argue that MLS should try and look to the long-term, and not seek to strengthen leagues that are ultimately going to develop into competitors. Lacrosse is small now, but then again, hockey was small once too. I believe that if in the future lacrosse develops into a sport with a functional league that draws thousands of spectators per game in the same markets as MLS, MLS will be worse off for it. MLS can survive with lacrosse, of course, but in my ideal world it won't have too.

[BenReilly]

Originally posted by K.P.


Well first of all, people do know about and play it in certain regions west of pennsylvania and south of virginia, as other posters have outlined. In fact, the game is growing, again as other posters have pointed out.

To answer your question, sports is a competitive market, and although some argue that there are gains to be had from working with lacrosse (or rugby), I would argue that MLS should try and look to the long-term, and not seek to strengthen leagues that are ultimately going to develop into competitors. Lacrosse is small now, but then again, hockey was small once too. .

Is this thread for real or have people gone completely insane? I'm just wondering. Yeah, MLS worry #100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

MLL

[kenntomasch]

Originally posted by DoyleG


Have you looked at the NLL?

NLL's different, and not part of the discussion. Indoor league. Marketed and presented like the MISL was in the 1980's. Does really, really well in some cities (like Toronto and Philadelphia) and crap in others.

The outdoor version has limited appeal outside the Northeast.

Doug Logan's trying to start a rugby league? What, does he speak Australian, too? "This is the season of no excuses, mate!"

BTW, I caught some Aussie Rules on Saturday on FSW and I was reminded of how much fun that game is to watch.

[Andy_B]

The cable ratings may have, in fact, gone up, but at least the broadcast ratings have held fairly steady,

But in reality, holding steady since 1990, is incredibly good since almost every other sport has seen their ratings dip.

It is just like the stock market, if you had the same amount of money invested today as you had in May of 1999, you would be WAY ahead of the game, even if you just held steady.

Andy

[ElJefe]

Originally posted by DoyleG
Have you looked at the NLL?
The what?

Seriously, lacrosse just barely exists in the South and West. It's not even on the radar screen.

[dfb547490]

Having to play in 80,000-seat NFL stadiums for huge rental fees will hurt MLS a lot more than competition with lacrosse or rugby. My point is that, if a stadium can't get built just for an MLS team, why not throw a rugby team and/or a lacrosse team into the equation? The more teams can play in a stadium, the more likely it is to get built.


Alex

[Sweeper]

Originally posted by dfb547490
Having to play in 80,000-seat NFL stadiums for huge rental fees will hurt MLS a lot more than competition with lacrosse or rugby. My point is that, if a stadium can't get built just for an MLS team, why not throw a rugby team and/or a lacrosse team into the equation? The more teams can play in a stadium, the more likely it is to get built.


Alex

Or how about venturing with WUSA teams to get the job done? If the Power and Metro join forces, United and Freedom, etc, you're looking at a minimum or 25 soccer related dates. Throw in friendlies and cup competitions, high school events and concerts and you have a great package.

[jotadia]

Originally posted by fidlerre


the columbus crew just recently signed an agreement with the columbus blue jackets of the NHL to cross-promote each others game and events...

of course the bluejackets are on a sell-out streak since they started play in the NHL 2 years ago so i dont think they needed the promotion but it will be nice to see the organizations work together in the columbus area.

Would you say getting the hockey team in Columbus affected attendance at Crew games?

[Baracuda]

I think Arena football has an advantage on all those sports who hope to be the 5th major sport in the US. The arena league and the NFL are now affiliated somehow. I believe its partnership with the NFL will give it some credibility and will help in it's growth.

[kenntomasch]

Originally posted by BenReilly


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.

Uh, Ben? I'm talking about The Game of the Week, as in The one game of the Week, the Fox Game of the Week, which normally gets 3's in roughly the same time slots as NASCAR races, making it apples and apples. Not the ESPN/Fox Sports Southwest/YES Network "dozens" of games on per week in the USA.

Postseason televised baseball is one of the most highly-priced commodities. Fox only bought the whole nut so they could have postseason baseball to promote their primetime lineups, not so they could run Saturday afternoon baseball games that get 3's.

[BenReilly]

Originally posted by kenntomasch


Uh, Ben? I'm talking about The Game of the Week, as in The one game of the Week, the Fox Game of the Week, which normally gets 3's in roughly the same time slots as NASCAR races, making it apples and apples. Not the ESPN/Fox Sports Southwest/YES Network "dozens" of games on per week in the USA.

Postseason televised baseball is one of the most highly-priced commodities. Fox only bought the whole nut so they could have postseason baseball to promote their primetime lineups, not so they could run Saturday afternoon baseball games that get 3's.

The post-season is but a small portion of the baseball television revenues (Fox being one source). You really need to study this a little bit.

There is no ONE game of the week. Fox shows one game, but most people have access to games every day, especially their local team. To compare one Fox game with the ONLY Nascar race is truly apples and oranges (actually it's apples and something far different). Who needs to watch the Fox game when their own team is playing a few hours later on TV? If they called it "game of the century" would that be even more confusing?

Baseball is by far the #2 TV sport in America by every measure even if you ignore the post-season. Not to side with the players, but baseball brings in so much f-ing money (again, from the regular season), it's ming boggling. Some of this income is hidden. For example, the Braves, which get ratings of 1.6 for 90 games, many of which are competing with other baseball games at the same time.

[kenntomasch]

First off, I don't believe I made any comparisons to the popularity of NASCAR versus baseball. I know baseball is number two. The fact is that NASCAR network ratings are higher than regular-season baseball network ratings. I'm not saying, nor did I say, that NASCAR was more popular than baseball, only that its network ratings are higher.


The post-season is but a small portion of the baseball television revenues (Fox being one source).

No, sh**, Sherlock. That wasn't the point, either. Local television revenue does dwarf national television revenue (the two New York teams, in fact, combined for 18% of baseball media revenue themselves). But that wasn't what we were talking about.

Here, I'll put it in bold type for you: Fox spent a billion dollars on baseball to get the postseason because, while its ratings are down, it still wins its timeslots handily and gives the network a chance to promote its prime-time programming. It's not to get regular-season baseball, that's a necessary evil.

You've been here all of what, four months? My advice to you is to lose the attitude.

[BenReilly]

Originally posted by kenntomasch
First off, I don't believe I made any comparisons to the popularity of NASCAR versus baseball. I know baseball is number two. The fact is that NASCAR network ratings are higher than regular-season baseball network ratings. I'm not saying, nor did I say, that NASCAR was more popular than baseball, only that its network ratings are higher.



No, sh**, Sherlock. That wasn't the point, either. Local television revenue does dwarf national television revenue (the two New York teams, in fact, combined for 18% of baseball media revenue themselves). But that wasn't what we were talking about.

Here, I'll put it in bold type for you: Fox spent a billion dollars on baseball to get the postseason because, while its ratings are down, it still wins its timeslots handily and gives the network a chance to promote its prime-time programming. It's not to get regular-season baseball, that's a necessary evil.

You've been here all of what, four months? My advice to you is to lose the attitude.

You make a terribly misleading comment and now get defensive/hostile when faced with the obvious informed response. Of course Fox didn't spend over a billion to show a tiny fraction of regular season baseball.

BTW, the Yanks and Mets aren't really at 18% because of all the hidden revenues like the Braves and Cubs.

I hear over and over that baseball ratings are low when the NFL is the only sports entitly in the universe making more money from television. It's just that not everyone is watching the same game and the same time. If you know all this, good.