. . . and the logic that resulted in a LA-centric national TV schedule is the same logic which holds as its guiding premise that Columbus should lose its team.
And I think it won't work. Late in the season, with Wondo closing in on Landon Donovan's all-time goals record, and the Galaxy and LAFC competing for next-to-last place in the West, the networks will have an epiphany: should have shown the Quakes, instead.
70,000 in the L.A. Coliseum for tonight's playoff game. Teams get people's attention when they do well, especially when you're talking about a storied one that returns home after many years elsewhere. L.A. Rams were certainly a thing down there back in the day. (I went to a bunch of those games as a kid.) Quakes can up their profile in the Bay Area by winning, but that's probably limited without a high-profile face for the FO to shop around to an otherwise unimpressed public.
Should have taken my bet. The Rams didn't do well yesterday. So, does that make the 70k crowd an aberration?
Yeah, this. And some of those teams getting national broadcasts are doing so because they they happen to be playing LAf#ck, or NyckF#ck, or Atholeanta, or whoever the flavor of the week is. BUT, to give MLS a little credit, they broadcast us plenty the first year that Avaya was open. I think in part they are showing a lot of LAf&ck games because they are the new kids on the block. Should be fewer of their games next season. (Assuming logic and reason, which are in short supply at MLS HQ.) And I don't believe for an instant that if we start winning consistently that MLS will make any effort to market us, write more articles about us, show us on TV more, or anything of the sort. They did nothing for us when we had Landon, and when Narcissus moved to Smell-lay, he suddenly became the face of the league. They hates us, my precious. Go Quakes!! - Mark
Sadly, this is untrue. We didn't get much notice from the local media when we won MLS Cup the first time, nor the second time, though we got a bit more attention when we won the Shield in '05. I think some of the other local teams were having off-years? Is that right? In any case, we suffer from being an MLS 1.0 city. The media in the Bay Area never took us seriously and they still don't. In a lot of MLS 2.0 cities, the media give the local teams a lot more attention and respect. (DC and Smell-lay were excenptions in that their media treated them well from the get.) In any case, I don't think that winning is going to make a big difference in terms of media love in the Bay Area. When some of those dinosaur sports reporters retire or die, then we'll see some change. Go Quakes!! - Mark
. . . and yet, after the game, the Rams' (and Rapids') owner decries the lack of a home-field advantage in TinselTown. https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...nt-have-true-home-field-advantage/1010963001/
In addition to that, San Jose has, and continues to be viewed by the media in the Bay Area as secondary to Frisco and even Oakland. Therefore, the provincialism of the Bay Area media has helped to minimize the amount of coverage the Quakes have received. When you combine this with the overall Mickey Mouse composition of the Quakes FO (which has, IMO, done a horrible job of keeping the team in the news and reaching out to local media outlets) I think it's a perfect storm of incompetence, disinterest, and disinclination that prevents the Quakes from being better represented in local media.
Hah! When I first came to Cali, my uncle always called it Frisco. Then I went to college and had to hear how it was 'The City' and 'Frisco' was just uncool. So, of course, I always made a point of using Frisco because that's how I am!
You and I must be brothers-from-another-mother. I do it just to piss off those folks I know who believe that San Antonio Road is the edge of the world.
Of course it is secondary. Probably always will be. Can't blame the media or the local media for perceiving the obvious.
Cmon. SJ is a lovely place with great weather, a strong economy, nice people. SF is one of the top handful of city's in the US in terms any objective measurement using economic strength, history, restaurants/nightlife, cultural hub, transit/infrastructure, tourism, etc. Might be 2nd to NY. I do wish the media throughout the Bay Area covered the Earthquakes more. Sportstalk radio in particular. Not sure it would matter much where the team played though.
"San Jose ranks third in the world in per-capita gross domestic product (GDP) after Zurich, Switzerland and Oslo, Norway . . .The San Francisco-Oakland area ranked 12th . . ." https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose...-has-worlds-third-highest-gdp-per-capita.html And not only is San Jose more industrious on a per person basis, San Jose has more persons than San Francisco.
Your definition of "objective" varies from mine. My preferred nightlife is a pro soccer game, followed by a burger at In-N-Out to celebrate victory.
Oh yeah, that. Kind of like Venice -- great place to visit but no one can afford to live there anymore.
Note that the top pictures can only be taken for about 3 days in October. The bottom pictures can be taken almost any day of the year.