Started work in a running store last week. Got the name of their preferred physical therapist. Had my first appointment with him today. Behind his desk, a Kingston Stockade shirt and a team photo. Opposite wall behind me, a signed 2014 Cosmos shirt. We had quite the discussion.
The NFL is rigged for parity in terms of schedule and draft choices, so presumably Detroit has a better chance of their failure being rewarded. I don't see that as a positive though.
I think the University of Kentucky's odds of ever winning the BCS Championship are not markedly different than Ipswich Town's. But let's make the odds even more in my favor, swap Kentucky (who at least have a path, albeit improbable) with New Mexico State (who, like Norwich or Ispwich are theoretically capable). Do the Lions have a statistically better chance of winning the NFL than Norwich the Premier League? Certainly. From year to year do their fans actually think it will happen? Color me skeptical.
This is what I'm saying though: the statement that Americans only care about winning championships has no bearing whatsoever: in their respective World Series droughts, the Cubs and Red Sox were still massively popular and, in fact, part of their popularity was their inability to win a championship.
Isn't UCL qualification an award for failure? Would you prefer it if Paul Allen bought Seattle the Super Bowl every year?
I'd say no. It's a reward for finishing above a certain place in your league, that is determined by prior performance by your leaguemates in continental competition. I've found that I am more excited following LA Galaxy into a new MLS season, wondering what the year will bring, than I am following Manchester United into a season where anything less than a title challenge is deemed a disappointment and holding a position that Burnley would be happy with, is considered a crisis.
Yes but you're winning something for coming second. I see that UEFA is planning a new competition so that everyone is a winner
Though Feyenoord hardly ever wins the title, people love the club. A few English lads visit the Feyenoord-PSV match. https://sportnieuws.nl/voetbal/binn...ieten-sfeertje-topper-feyenoord-en-psv-video/
They won it in 2017 and their recent drought was the first time they went more than a decade without winning the league. It's a bit like saying Arsenal and Liverpool fans are dedicated and long-suffering.
Separate competition. Different teams. Different season. Different federation. You come 4th in the Premier League and you're handed $100 million in TV money, advertising and match revenue..
So what? The principal is the same, namely that the teams that do best in the "regular season" go forward to a "playoff". And finishing fourth in the Prermier League is a heck of a lot less a "reward for failure" than finishing 12th in MLS.
If the top 11 are in one conference, you could qualify in 17th place. Then again, in the UCL you have a 4th placed team from one league qualifying directly, while some 1st placed teams have to go through a series of qualification rounds.
If not winning championships, Americans care about at least contending for a championship. Part of the narrative for the Cubs and Red Sox is that they had some long periods of consistently contending for titles but falling short.
This is very much it. US teams aren't resigned to their zenith being surprise qualification to a second-tier continental cup that's more likely to stretch their roster and get them relegated than advance them as an outfit.
SLC doesn't have any other areas that are big enough to be media markets. The nearest other market is over 5 hours away. New Orleans is within 3 hours of Mobile-Pensacola, Baton Rouge, Lafayette, Jackson, Biloxi-Gulfport, Hattiesburg-Laurel, and Meridian. In Nielsen TV markets for Fall 2017, those markets have a combined 5,576,600 people ages 12+ (TV and radio markets use ages 12+). Only ten TV markets have a larger population than all of those combined. Fresno and Bakersfield are 1:44 away according to Google Maps. Neither of them is likely to get a top level club soon. If they both had clubs in the same D2 league and one moved to D1, would fans of the other one watch D1 to root against a rival? I would guess a few, but not many. The BCS doesn't exist anymore. Not only would an MLS club with that small a stadium have a low payroll by MLS standards, but if that club replaced a more popular club, MLS would make less money from national contracts, which would mean less revenue for all MLS clubs. Furthermore, even if fans of Colorado and RSL hate the other club, I think they would prefer both clubs in MLS than to have the other one relegated and replaced by a club getting 10,000 attendance in Wichita (and the attendance there would probably be lower). I root for the Islanders, who won four consecutive Stanley Cups before I was born but has won one playoff series in the last 24 complete seasons. I root for the Knicks, who won one playoff series in the last 18 complete seasons. I root for the Giants, who won two surprise Super Bowls in the last 11 complete seasons, but in the last 17 complete seasons they haven't won a playoff game in any other season. Even the Yankees have won one World Series in the last 18 seasons. The Red Bulls have never won MLS Cup. Some teams have won three consecutive titles, and my teams have won three titles since 2001 in five leagues combined. I watch teams less if they don't do well, but I don't stop rooting for them. I root for a college team that will never win a title, and Florida State, who is normally good but has one title in the 2000s. I'm a Manchester United fan who agrees with you. I'd rather the Red Bulls win their first title than Manchester United win another.
So sounds like you would favor a 16 team playoff, personally i'd like an 8 team playoff with every power 5 champion getting a spot and a guaranteed spot for the highest ranked non power 5 champion. Think this keeps the pressure on the regular season. Actually I think I am the opposite of you and would like a world where the NCAA was completely out of college football. Let College football be a part of the Universities' marketing department, pay the players as employees of the University and drop the whole charade of "Student Athletes". Not sure why their would be any change in divisions I'm actually not talking about pro/rel between divisions just between conferences. Basically the power 5 is the upper tier, the mid majors the lower. And you would only move from one to the other, and only in football. You already have teams playing in different conferences in different sports. This is actually quite common at the FCS level around football. Now to get away from the nuts and bolts since we both agree this is never happening instead I want to focus on how would this impact fans? Would this be worse for fans? For me the groups of fans most against this would be teams consistently at the bottom of Power 5 conferences. Let's take Indiana, I am sure if I brought this idea to an Indiana fan they'd be appalled at the idea of being kicked out of the Big 10 (again only in football). But my question is are their fears accurate? Is their a possibility that after a year or two they actually find that it's more fun being at the top of the Mac then the doormat of the Big 10? I think College football does plenty of that already on it's own. Exactly and that's the point. The University of Ohio isn't going to challenge Ohio State regularly. But in a perfect world I think they should have the chance to try, and I think that makes the competition as a whole more appealing.
I was comparing New Orleans to Louisville, though. Louisville has peer (or larger) cities very close by. Those cities you list (outside Baton Rouge) are, by and large, really small. SLC was an example of an extreme case of isolation. Louisville doesn't have that advantage for being relatively the same size as New Orleans. This kind of is missing my point. Right now, if you don't directly follow an MLS team the league is basically invisible. There is very little coverage and it has basically zero way to enter a casual soccer fan's interest. If teams you are familiar with fall in and out of the league, you're far more likely to at least have a point of reference to the league. I mean, or maybe not. But I seriously doubt MLS can reach casual, non-market soccer fans the way the NFL and MLB. I think this also something that NBA and NHL struggle with. The possibility of being able to include a constantly changing set of markets could be a way to put the league on more people's radar. Ok, you knew what I was referring to.
The league is invisible until someone like Wayne Rooney comes doing who is just the type of player that MLS is no longer trying to attract. But it's really about media coverage. The domestic sports guys want to talk about the big 4. That means MLS is pushed out to the specialist channels which cover international sports. So the domestic fans don't see any coverage while the soccerphiles see an inferior league. Of course not having a team in your market doesn't help. But I think 8 years of build up to the 2026 will help the sport get more attention than having 4,000 Riverhounds fans watching the MLS Cup will. Even if pro-rel were introduced today I think it would take a long time for the majority of fans to understand what it really means to them.