Another fallacy that has been disproven I'm sure you got this number off of Twitter from World Soccer Talk or Ben Fast or Ted Westerveldt or one of the other Pro/Rel nuts. But its vital in this discussion of whether we continue it or not. If you are going to stick to believing that FALSE number concocted for a self fulfilled premise, their isn't any use of us wasting key strokes. More validated people in the media on social media has picked that article and the 6-7% claims to pieces. That research while im sure required hard working is the perfect example of confirmation bias and misreading data. The take way that was pointed out and has been pointed out repeatedly on Twitter by those who work in network media like Mike Decourcy of the Big Ten Network is that the article didn't take into account local coverage of games(bulk of MLS coverage is local televised games), Didn't include all nationally televised numbers ie Spanish viewing and even if you decided to go with that bad data it was concluded wrong. The data stated MLS was shown on TV 7% of the time and had a 6% share which would've made it proportional. You show it more on National TV the TV share will increase. As far as the pat on the back stuff you mentioned I was told a long time ago never be ashamed to give yourself a pat on the back because there are plenty people who'll stab you in it and kick you when you're down
I prefer to stab myself in the back, just so I can learn to keep the eyes on the back of my head pointed forward! I hate when people talk shit behind my back right in front of my face!
No idea but I would think the last 6 years would be more relevant to TV execs than 23 years ago. Not very relevant to today. A lot has changed in 23 years.
I actually found the answer. The record is 3.1 million in '96. Second place is '97 and third is '98 After that we have to go to 2016 for fourth, so that's a bit of a positive, though that involves combining the viewership for 2 channels in 2 languages. Speaking of that, I think 2018 could have beaten 2016, but the Spanish language moved from Univision to Unimas. Interestingly, the top 4 highest rated regular season games have all been on Fox. I know a small event called the world cup final caused the #1 spot. The other 3 also followed world cup games. I know NBCSN had some double headers with the Olympics, but they never tried putting an MLS game on NBC to follow morning Olympics coverage.
ou could add Chicago to that list, we have 5 games on Univision/UniMas, more tham both Houston & San Jose, but at least they have a local TV station showing games, unlike here in Chicago (ESPN+)
We aren't there yet, not even close, if that was the case every team would just have streaming TV as their local TV partner. I have no problem having ESPN+ with a local TV partner. Only having ESPN+ as your TV partner is stupid. How many causal fans are you missing out with just being on ESPN+. All this was here, is that our owner is a cheapass and wasn't willing to make an investment into his team. Oh, by the way I'm not your BUDDY........
How can I have a link for something that hasn't happened yet? It's the only thing that makes sense for a unified local deal though.
https://awfulannouncing.com/soccer/mls-local-deals-2022-packaging-national.html Hopefully they fail in doing this. I like having more team autonomy.
At 28 teams (probably more not long after this deal kicks in) we have 14 matches per matchday. That's a lot to get into national TV schedules. The NFL has their networks broadcasting up to 8 matches between two channels at the same time splitting them regionally. Only the NFL can pull that off. We can't generate the ad revenue to justify producing multiple matches at once splitting the viewers from each other. Only the NFL can do that.
Sure, you're not wrong, but @crookeddy literally said: And immediately @Yoshou pointed out (beating me to it) that there's already a league in this country that doesn't do it that way. So, yeah, its not the ONLY option out there, despite the claim. Given the poster's long track record of trolling its not wrong to call him out (again) for talking out of his ass.