Interesting article on the front page of ESPN.com. The new CEO of Cricket Holdings America is saying all the right things (or the things I wanted to hear anyway ). http://sports.espn.go.com/extra/cricket/news/story?id=8456148 (Peter Della Penna) The only thing that makes me worry is that they will play mostly in baseball stadiums. I guess they couldn't find investor groups with deep enough pocket or committed enough to build cricket-specific facilities. Or maybe they just wanted to get it off the ground first without any more delay (the project is already a year late) and have a better long-term plan than that. We'll see.
I would think they would want to see cricket make money on real television before they'd want to risk investing in live cricket. I don't get ESPN3 and I don't know how many people do, but that means I can only see one match on television--the final, on delay. That kind of "support" means ESPN doesn't really think cricket will rate all that well. They are right of course, but the U.S. is a long way from being able to support domestic Twenty20. If nothing else, look at soccer. Aren't I right in saying that until the best soccer in the world (the World Cup) came here, soccer wasn't exploding like it is now?
ESPN putting the games on ESPN3 doesn't necessarily mean they didn't expect the games to draw decent ratings on TV. It may just mean they expected to benefit more with this current setup by using the millions of hardcore expat cricket fans in the US to get ESPN3 into more households. They're more likely to recoup their rights fees this way than with the extra viewers they would get by putting cricket on ESPN2 in place of Mike & Mike in the Morning and ESPN First Take (both also get decent ratings for the timeslot and are loaded with advertisements). Cricket being a new thing on TV would probably make it hard for the network to get high paying sponsors for a while which may also have contributed to the games being relegated to ESPN3. They also probably didn't want to give people the impression that they're jamming this unknown sport down everyone's throats and instead opted to use the ESPN website and Bottomline tickers on ESPN2 to gradually promote and raise awareness of the sport. While a domestic T20 league would be risky at this stage (mainly because of having to invest big in stadiums) I don't think we're a long way away from supporting one. The amount of hardcore fans that exist here are already more than few cricket loving nations. We also have much bigger disposable income than many of those countries. In Sri Lanka Premier league and World Twenty20, for example, they were practically giving away the tickets (by our standard) at less than 20 US. cents and 50 cents per ticket respectively. Sure, some of them have solid TV ratings time to time but again, they don't get much in rights fees (in US dollars) from their TV networks because of the low spending power of their population. These factors affect how much they can pay their players. Until IPL came along cricketers in general didn't have high salary (compared to athletes in other sports) and most B and C levels cricketers in poor countries were playing for peanuts. The TV landscape in the US is much different and is always changing for the better for niche sports. We have many niche sports leagues now that are getting paid decent money from TV despite not producing great ratings. I can easily see a T20 cricket league being one of them, few years after its existence if not by the first season. We can lure many B level stars from around the world and even some superstars with the much better salary we will be able to offer. I don't expect it to match the IPL in any way or even be profitable for a while (that's normal for many start-up businesses in the US). If we keep our expectations and spending to a reasonable level (i.e. don't try to take on the IPL) we can have a quality league that will be sustainable in time. We just could use a Phillip Anschutz or Lamar Hunt to get this league through the rough first few years the way MLS has.
Forgot to respond to this part. It's true that soccer was not as popular here before hosting the world cup as it is after. But we still had a league in the 70's and 80's with many teams that drew over 12,000 per game (not a bad figure for that time). The league itself averaged 14,000+ for two years. Two of the biggest reasons for its collapse were over-expansion, into 24 markets (cricket will not likely make this mistake) and letting a team like the New York Cosmos start a spending war (by buying up many of the expensive stars) that other markets couldn't afford. A salary cap and Single Entity structure would keep this in check. Cricket also doesn't need to explode like soccer has to be able to afford a league. We just can't have a league with the spending level of MLS' or other more profitable American leagues; that's all. If Major League Lacrosse can survive for many years with an attendance of 4500-5000 and not much TV money, if any, there's no reason a cricket T20 league can't accomplish the same. Sure, cricket needs bigger investment with the stadiums but this sport is also likely to have better TV revenues down the road because of the already existing fan base that is pretty sizable and having a potential to grow a bigger casual fan base because of the high-scoring and TV-friendly nature of T20 cricket. BTW, Neil Maxwell, the CEO of Cricket Holdings America, has mentioned few times that they'll bid to host a World T20 event on the US soil within this decade. If awarded I can see it having a better attendance (if host cities are New York, New Jersey, Florida, and San Jose/San Francisco) and much better revenues (50 cents per ticket vs. $25-$30 USD) than the past T20 events in the Caribbean and Sri Lanka did. The US TV rights fee will also likely skyrocket as a result, although we're already the 2nd biggest contributors in the world in that department.
Did ESPN3 expand because of the World Twenty20? I honestly don't know, the answer to that question would affect my arguments. Because unless the answer to that question is yes, I really do believe that cricket would rate less than Mike & Mike or the 38th rerun of SportsCenter. I know that there is a large cricket fan base in, at least, certain areas of the country. My first experiences with the sport were seeing people playing it in a park in Queens from the car while on the way to Mets games while I was a kid. I just don't know if that base is large enough to make it worthwhile, especially when the non expat audience would be microscopic. I love cricket, I really do. I was in Australia during the Ashes in '08 or '09 and lost a lot of sleep watching the first four tests before I had to leave. I wish that every test could be on TV. Heck, I'd even watch a few limited overs matches. But I think cricket is a long way from being a meaningful niche TV product, let alone something that could make money from a league. I hope I am wrong though.
The process usually doesn't work that fast. It takes months of complaining (by the fans of a league) to the service providers or switching providers. For a while they ignore; then if they feel they are being bothered a lot, by a lot of people and/or are losing enough customers to rival providers they start negotiating with ESPN3. That part can take while too as they haggle over the subscription fee and conditions. ESPN3 has been expanding their reach for years and years, so I expect them to be in more households again over the next few years. What part of that will be due to the cricket fans I have no way of knowing. They sure will try to make the network a must-have for the cricket lovers with dozens of events and hundreds of games streaming over the next 3 years. I don't know about not beating Mike & Mike in ratings. While it gets decent ratings for 6 AM, cricket has a big enough fan base that are hardcore enough to follow events as big as the World Cup or World Twenty20 at any time of the day. It's the ad revenue (or lack thereof) that would be my concern. Finding lucrative sponsors for a new sport targeting an ex-pat demographics will be tough for a while. Making the fans get ESPN3 will give them a better short-mid term return. Besides, there are few properties that just barely beat Mike & Mike despite getting a better time slot (and doesn't beat First Take or SportsCenter) yet those properties are on cable TV years after years; some are even getting paid a rights fee. Ad revenues and subscriber fees count more than just the raw ratings. If you're talking about Test cricket I'll agree with you; it will likely never be on cable TV (in my lifetime at least), let alone make money. Twenty20 is another story. I have followed every American sports for 15-16 years, and I know what Americans like/love in a sport. Twenty20 and 50-over cricket has just about everything, although the later format will take longer to catch on due to its length. A network just has to put the games on TV even at a short term loss (probably only works if they have a very long term deal, like Fox's 8 year deal with FIFA). The rest will work itself out over time.
You are clearly much more of an optimist than I am. Yes, I did mean every cricket test match. But since the only other sport that I know of that regularly has games called "test matches" is rugby, I wouldn't complain if all rugby tests were on TV either. Now since I am not an optimist, I do have one small concern about your desire for American Cricket to start smashing sixes. I think there can be an audience for Twenty20 and even tests if cricket were marketed the right way and if time could be taken to properly educate America about the sport. If golf fans can watch a four day tournament every weekend and ESPN can televise wall to wall tennis every time the majors role around, the five days of a test match aren't that much of a stretch if cricket is a well supported pastime. But.... Limited overs cricket, in all of its permutations, does lack one incredibly important thing that American audiences love: the comeback. It takes an educated cricket fan to truly understand the ebb and flow of the single innings and see how the match can turn even in the middle overs of an innings. To the average American fan, they will see one team bat and the other team bat and then everyone goes home. After a few times of watching this, most of them, I would think, might begin to see that since every match starts with the team batting second in a three digit hole, they will either want more and shorter innings or they will turn off the channel. Baseball teams switch back and forth every few minutes and one swing of the bat can erase up to a four run deficit. A football team can run the two minute drill and change the face of the game--I am a Giants fan, we call trailing after the third quarter a regular old Sunday. Basketball games go back and forth over the last two minutes in many if not most games. Even a soccer team that can stay within a goal has the chance for a last minute comeback. In cricket, the team that bats first can never overcome blowing the lead. A great batsman thrilling audiences with his century is simply never going to pick up the bat again once he loses his wicket. The bowler who turns the game with a hat trick in the first over cannot come back to close down the game in the last over (usually). But again, I am not an optimist.
I see what you're saying but there will be an education process. With the combination of cricket games being on cable TV and that process (through TV commentary, on screen demonstrations between deliveries and over breaks, and perhaps a 'beginners' section on CricInfo dedicated to it) people will start to get the drama and excitement of cricket. Just like many of us did when we were young. Many will watch the games with curiosity and may not find exciting enough but some will. That's the beauty of it: in a country of 300 millions where a sport with bats bashing balls or great spinning balls fooling the batters is very popular all you need is a tiny percentage of them to be intrigued, educated, and hooked for this sport to be viable (if it's not to be already with just the current hardcore fans). I'd be worried or less optimistic if 1) baseball was not popular 2) if we didn't have a huge population with different tastes and cultures, and 3) if we didn't have an insane amount of disposable income compared to some cricketing nations. To the educated viewers T20 cricket has plenty of drama, even in the first inning. One over you can lose 2 of your wickets quickly with a low run rate and it seems like the team might be in trouble. The next few overs there are few boundaries including Sixes with the run rate dramatically up and you get the sense that it will be alright even with the loss of (important) wickets. Over time people will become educated enough to learn what a bad/decent/great score is for the first inning (and for what type of team), especially in this age of the internet, forum and social media. They will also learn the importance of getting/losing wickets early or in a bad time or what can happen when a team loses the 'good' wickets (first 6-7), and the meaning of run rate (and required run rate for the 2nd innings). In the first inning, the broadcasters will need to show the 'Projected score if team gets X runs for the remainder of overs, Y runs, and Z runs' graphic every few minutes (more often than they are shown in other countries) and the team's average first inning score (in this tournament and/or vs. this team), average power-play score etc. In the 2nd innings they will need to show the Current Run Rate, Required RR, and 'At this stage Team A had X run/Y wicket' graphics constantly . The way the 'To win needs X runs, from Y balls' figure changes after every ball in the 2nd inning is also very exciting and can sometimes be dramatic. Then there are all the statistics, cool graphics ('the pitch map', 'wagon wheel', 'run rate/wicket worm', 'Manhattan' etc. ), and technologies (hawk-eye animation which I'd use more often, even without the LBW shouts if the ball goes close enough to the stumps; hot spot etc.) that this sport will use to fascinate the Americans. Cricket will start to appear 'deeper' than the simple game Asian immigrants play with a paddle and tennis ball in the local park. One area where the biggest gain cricket may have someday is from the improvement of the US national teams (both men's and women's). If they become good enough to qualify for the World Cup consistently it will start giving the Americans a true rooting interest (similar to the USNT's in soccer), especially over time as the makeup of the team starts becoming more 'American' (i.e. less naturalized Americans and more 2nd and 3rd generations including some Caucasians mixed in). Yes, I'm more optimistic than most cricket fans I've met on many forums (esp. fans of Test cricket). But I've watched my other favorite sport, soccer, grow over the last 30 years from pretty much nothing to the thriving multi-billion dollar business it is now against the derision by hundreds of sports writers/journalists, TV personalities, comedians, and millions of average Americans. It was a wonderful journey for some of us who always believed in this great product and its ability despite many fellow fans having made things worse with their pessimism and waving of the white flag. I strongly believe this success can be replicated with Twenty20 cricket in time, at least on a smaller scale. The sport doesn't have some of the things soccer had going for it when we hosted the 1994 World Cup right before MLS started (youth participation notably) but it also has some advantages and similarities with top American sports that soccer never had that I believe will give cricket a fighting chance.