New Revs employee now on BigSoccer

As much as I love the musketeers, I have to really get behind what you say here!

 

Horses running onto the field, dudes in halloween costumes firing muskets, Slyde, PA sound effects and all that nonsense is so friggin hokey and minor league. People don't go to games to see that shit, nor does it excite them. People support teams, go to games, buy merchandise, watch games on TV...because they want a good product and a home team to root for that looks PROFESSIONAL.

If I was Marcus, I would be laughing my ass off and printing up some of these posts in 72pt font and posting them in conferences at 1 Patriot Way to say "Hey look, these fans really are morons LMAO...let's have a Justin Beiber bobblehead doll night LOL!!!!!"

 

Maybe they do. And in some NBA cities they play music during the game, forget about during stoppages. That doesn't mean it's good.

 

Look at the Red Sox. There comes a tipping point to where the bullshit nonsense you put on the field isn't supported by the winning, and you look like a bunch of amateur snake oil salesmen. Now the Red Sox are a joke, and everyone sees it. Well, everyone but the demographic of fans that think that shit is cool...who will be gone in 5 years when the Red Sox become less and less relevant.

 

Admittedly, I haven't been to many Revs matches over the last few years, but I don't think I have seen any of the "WWE" antics that people are speaking of and there are hardly any sound effects played over the PA during the game outside of goal celebrations. The muskets also provide zero disruption since they happen after a goal is scored. I guess I fail to see what is offensive or minor league about that. Are the Bruins a minor league team for having the PA guy "wooo" after a goal?

Perhaps I haven't been paying attention, but I have not seen the noise meter (minor league Boston Celtics use that) or heard canned noise to get the fans going (equally minor league Boston Red Sox use that).

I must have also missed the laser light show associated with pregame introductions that was mentioned somewhere else.

Is Slyde on the pitch at halftime really that offensive? Is he any more ridiculous than Wally the Green Monster? Or Pat Patriot? Or the leprechaun guy?

 

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that the Revs do much of that hokey bullshit. I think they have been fairly good about that for a long time.

 

Nothing directed at you two specifically, just pointing out that there are several posts of folks saying that the Revs should stop doing things that they are not doing to begin with.

 

Yeah, it's actually one thing I think the Revs have done right for a long time. I think Slyde is hokey, but I barely see him. The muskets, to me, are pretty dumb, but it is literally the only thing of that nature they do.

 

And yet, they're still lucky if they reach 50% capacity most nights.

 

Are you suggesting more music and more Slyde, or less muskets and no Slyde?

Also, no Bengtson while Honduras is playing and no Sene while he's recovering should reduce the musket issues.

 

and you are drawing that correlation? wow

 

If your reading comprehension skills were a little better you'd understand that I never said any of those things exist at Revs games, because in fact they don't. We've moved away from the days of the big inflatable soccer ball for pregame introductions and some of the other BS. I was just saying that a costumed Sam Adams riding a horse onto the field starts bordering on some of the stupid pregame antics that you see in American professional sports that I hope never enter the world of soccer.

As for all of the professional teams you listed that use the canned noise, noise meter, fireworks, etc. That doesn't change things for me. It doesn't make it any better. There are countless NBA teams who play music during the game itself, do you think the Revs should do that too? I like the fact that going to a soccer game is about going to watch and participate in live soccer. I don't need other gimmicks or bells and whistles to get me excited about the game or entertained.

 

I agree and disagree. I totally agree that doing things that take attention away from the game as it's going on, like playing music while a ball/puck/shuttlecock/whatever is in play, is terrible, and I want nothing to do with it, but I don't understand why firing muskets after a goal makes the team hokey and unprofessional. And as has been said, I hardly notice Slyde, and if it does add a little fun for kids, whose attention spans are not the same as adults, as long as it's not in your face or unavoidable, I couldn't care less. (I don't have kids, I wonder what the consensus is from people who do, but I've heard it said that some kids do love the mascots, and it does increase their enjoyment of sporting events)

What is and isn't hokey is rather subjective. I'm sure some people might think it's hokey having a cookout by the stadium before a game, or standing the whole game screaming or singing silly songs (something much more common in college rather than professional sports in this country, btw), and they'd say something like 'why don't those people sit down and watch the game?' Just so we're clear, I'm not saying we need a horse, or saying I think we should try it, but I find no reason to begrudge others enjoying it, just like others shouldn't begrudge fans standing and singing all game. You may not like it, so it's affect on you is the opposite of exciting, but I think it's a stretch to say the fans in a stadium aren't excited when their mascot is riding onto the field before a game.

 

But this is the line of reasoning that began a lot of these in stadium things to begin with. That, because it hasn't been done, and because it's subjective, it's possible, even probable, that if we come up with some sort of thing to excite the crowd, that it will result in a better game day experience.

Ask yourself an honest question, how many times have you gone to a sporting event and left thinking, or hearing other people actually say, boy I wish there were more things going on other than the actual game?

Also, we are trying to compare a bunch of American sports than are literally built for these sorts of excitement building things during downtime. The 4 major sports all have major stoppages in play. Times in the game where the excitement from the fans can't grow naturally, because there is literally no action going on. So, while it is a bit plastic and manufactured, it somewhat makes sense to pump up a crowd after a timeout or coming back from commercial. Otherwise, it's possible that the number of breaks in the game would put people to sleep and expose their games for what they are...commercially disrupted distractions. There are a hell of a lot of hokey fans that would tell you that the game was far more exciting, and the stadium experience was much better, before there were commercial breaks, and nonsense between whistles. That was a long time ago, so it's hard to imagine that time, but before TV turned sports into the media spectacle that it is, crowds in stadiums didn't need shit being thrown at their eyes and senses that didn't have to do with the game, to be excited.

Soccer is completely different. There are no real stoppages of play. The only time there is a stoppage is during a goal, or injury. Goals bring organic celebration anyways. Sure, if you wanna fire off some muskets and make it even louder, then fine. I guess that isn't so bad. It looks hokey, but that is my personal taste. And you sure as shit aren't going to play some "pump up" music after an injury. LOL that would be the worst possible taste imaginable.

As far as getting people "fired up" before a game that plays non-stop for 45 straight minutes until it takes a 15 minute break and then plays for another 45 non-stop minutes...is pointless. That manufactured excitement will be gone before the ball is touched by the 3rd person in the game.

My whole point here is that that shit doesn't get people excited about soccer. What gets people excited about soccer is exciting play on the field, goals and winning. It's part of the reason why most of us gravitate toward "the beautiful game". It doesn't need all this ancillary nonsense to keep us constantly stimulated, or to tell us when we should be pumped up. The nuances of the game don't lend itself to that, and that is why it's beautiful.

 

Not necessarily.

But if you're in Marketing or Sales for the Revs, you have no control over how good the on-field product is. You can't base your whole strategy around the idea that people should come to watch a good MLS team, because you don't know if they'll be good or not. And besides, at least in this market, people don't seem to care how good they are. (See attendance from 2002-06)

There's got to be something beyond the quality of the team that draws people in, because the quality of the team is never guaranteed.

 

I apologize if a general reply to couple of pages worth of discussion, in which I do not reference any single poster or reply directly to a quoted post appeared to be directed to you. Perhaps you should consider changing your name from Crooked to Center of the Universe to more accurately reflect your status here. Though you raise a good point that post number 457, which comes after eight posts by three posters who aren't you, could be seen as a direct reply to your post, number 449.

Allow me to state more clearly what I was getting at. There is no difference between the Bruins' woo-ing of goals and the Revs musketeering, save for the floating smoke cloud and, fortunately, the inability of the fans to repeat the noise (I don't think I'd want many of the posters here armed at Revs matches...again, not directed at you personally, but more to the general sentiment of the board). While both may have been hokey at the start, they are now just a part of the game. Honestly, I like the shots after goals.

I'm also not advocating for more generated noise in any sporting venue. As much as there is excess noise played at Celtics and Red Sox games (haven't been to a live Bruins game in years), it is far less prevalent and less offensive than other venues I have been to. As much as it is present with the Boston teams, the Sox and Celtics game presentations are much more focused on the game itself than other places I have been (Cleveland Indians and Cavs, Baltimore Orioles, Dallas Mavericks, New Orleans Future-Pelicans, Buffalo Sabres and Bills to be specific). Even watching Knicks and Nets games as I do now, there is far too much noise piped (more than the Celtics) in for supposedly engaged fan-bases.

The Revs should continue with minimal in-game noise.

 

Yeah, and that has nothing to do with adding ancillary distractions to the experience. You are still trying to correlate something not being there with the success or failure of a product, without any real rationale. Just because it is or isn't doesn't make it good.

If you think winning doesn't draw people in, which it often doesn't, why do you think running a horse onto the field would? That is the question you should be asking. There is a simple answer, too. It wouldn't.

 

That is a gross mischaracterization. There is a VAST difference between a PA announcers wooing after announcing a goal...and a bunch of guys dressed in costumes from over 200 years ago, firing weapons just as old, with fake "bullets", smoke, noise etc...One thing is a generally natural reaction, although now a part of the act. The other has been, and always will be, a manufactured distortion of reality.

 

My girls watch the game & don't particularly relate to Slyde. They have been soccer players since they've been in pre-school and like to actually watch the professional game. I'll admit they relate more to the Women's National Team and get more excited about that there team - But they DO enjoy live Revs games just fine.

At least in that regard I'm raising them right!

I think that maybe appeasing the short-attention-span kids out there with silly mascots is detremental to their development as soccer fans. Keeping them 'busy' with games and giant stuffed animals and off-field action further pushes the game into the secondary background. Fun little things when the game is not on is just fine (Muskets, PA gabber, music...) as long as it is doesn't take away from the most crucial 90+ minutes.

As with most problems with our youth these days, much can be boiled down to bad parenting. "We're going to the soccer game to watch the GAME!" should be parental-type Revs fans' mantra.

Marcus, have a parent clinic and fix our parenting issues.

Kevin D.

 

Its not the goal announcement, its the Woo. The Woo has nothing to do with hockey and actually is from professional wrestling. The goal announcement is what it is and happens everywhere in all sports (except for baseball where I've never heard anyone announce who scored immediately after they crossed home, nor should I since baseball is the easiest sport to follow).

 

A "woo" is still a relatively natural reaction to something exciting. Sure, it is contrived now, but the reaction itself is a natural thing, regardless of where you think the roots are. There is nothing natural about guys intentionally dressed in costumes and firing off fake weapons.

 

A "woo" is a relatively small reaction, yes. However, when it comes after a fog horn, music, and an extended announcement of who scored, the time of the goal to the second, the period in which the goal was scored, the first assist, the second assist, and the restart of play, I would be inclined to deny it status as a natural reaction to the goal itself.